Adam Carolla mentions Aberdeen Proving Ground on the show!
This is a funny thing for me, and all the other people that I know that visit this site and are from that area:
Adam (very briefly) mentioned the Aberdeen Proving Ground base in Aberdeen, MD on the show a few nights ago... I thought some people might get a kick out of that, especially Mike.
Adam Mentions APG on the show (MP3, 77 KB)
Another pretty damn funny moment from the show...
Now, whoever listens to the show knows that most of the callers that call Loveline aren't quite that bright... but a few years ago someone called the show and ended up being really funny. Adam and Drew call him their "best caller ever".
The best caller ever (MP3, 720 KB)
Monday, April 25, 2005
Monday, April 18, 2005
Why Widescreen?
Here's another example of why Widescreen is the preferred way to watch a movie. I made this one myself.
The following clip shows parts of the film October Sky in both Widescreen and Full Screen simultaneously, and you can see in real-time the changes that have to be made to a widescreen film to make it fit into full screen. (The image on the top of the video is the original Widescreen film that you would see in the theater, and the image on the bottom is the modified Full Screen version, formatted for TV).
I encourage you to watch the scenes over and over again a few times, and watch closely to see the changes that are being made: some scenes have an artificial camera move inserted, and other sequences add additional cuts to the scene, cutting back and forth.
Needless to say, this was never how the director originally intended his film to be seen, and the only way to preserve the film's artistic integrity and view it as it was supposed to be seen, is to watch the film in Widescreen.
Click on the picture below to watch the scene. (11 MB, Windows Media Player required)
The following clip shows parts of the film October Sky in both Widescreen and Full Screen simultaneously, and you can see in real-time the changes that have to be made to a widescreen film to make it fit into full screen. (The image on the top of the video is the original Widescreen film that you would see in the theater, and the image on the bottom is the modified Full Screen version, formatted for TV).
I encourage you to watch the scenes over and over again a few times, and watch closely to see the changes that are being made: some scenes have an artificial camera move inserted, and other sequences add additional cuts to the scene, cutting back and forth.
Needless to say, this was never how the director originally intended his film to be seen, and the only way to preserve the film's artistic integrity and view it as it was supposed to be seen, is to watch the film in Widescreen.
Click on the picture below to watch the scene. (11 MB, Windows Media Player required)
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Updated Top 10 List
(My list of) the best films of 2004
Clicking on each of the films will bring you to a clip/trailer from each.
Clicking on each of the films will bring you to a clip/trailer from each.
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
- Fahrenheit 9/11
- Garden State
- Sideways (Clip 1) (Clip 2)
- Tarnation
- The Life Aquatic
- Before Sunset
- Vera Drake (clip has subtitles, due to the hard-to-understand accents)
- Ray
- The Aviator (Clip 1) (Clip 2)
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
4 Movies
Closer
Here's the deal: Closer isn't nearly as dark as you've heard, but it is emotionally brutal. A stellar cast and a show-stopping turn by Natalie Portman highlight this movie, which centers on the love/hate relationships of two couples in London. A lot of it is darkly funny, and one of its charms is that you go from loving the characters to hating them, sometimes all within the same scene. Many people have reported feeling depressed after viewing this film; the fact that they're watching people emotionally destroy others. I have to say that I felt rather differently than that after seeing this. Not happy, per se, but... content. The film really puts in perspective the relationship that you're in (if you're in one, of course) and, in my case, the fact that I could never cheat on anyone. You do feel above these characters after watching, and you feel good about yourself for it.
Mike Nichols (The Graduate) directs this, and the result is electrifying. When people talk, it's more like enemies exchanging gunfire than a conversation. Patrick Marber adapts his play to the screen, and apart from the usual shortcomings such adaptations have, it translates amazingly well. Portman, as I mentioned before, does a 180 degree-turn from anything she's done before, playing an emotionally damaged stripper (pretty crazy for her, I know, but trust me...it works). Clive Owen has become my new person-to-watch, after seeing him in Sin City and this...he definitely has presence. Jude Law somehow shows up in another good movie (he's gotta have the best agent in Hollywood) and he's pretty damn good in it too. The only real drawback is (no surprise) Julia Roberts, who thankfully underacts this time, and so she mostly gets away unscathed here. I suppose this is where we might as well start talking about flaws. Julia is one (and hell, she's not even too bad here), but her character is the biggest flaw in the film. It's the most underwritten of the four characters, and most of the time you don't know why the hell she's doing what she's doing. I would say that that might be the point, but that idea goes out the window as soon as we see the end of her character's dramatic arc, and witness that the filmmakers were going for some sort of emotional resonance with her character that never really hits home, since her character isn't really explored. The others are fully developed, however. The movie doesn't really suffer from the usual feeling of a play adapted to a film; it's probably because the story focuses on just the four people for a reason, within the confines of the story. The dialogue is great too: snappy, fast-paced and brutal. Some sexually explicit talk in there too, so if you're sensitive to that stuff, then I'd think twice before checking it out (it's no more than in Boogie Nights or a Kevin Smith movie, but it is there, so that's your warning).
So, not everyone's cup of tea, but for those who enjoy this type of thing, it's pretty good. Worth a look just for the performances.
3 stars (out of five)
Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut
Well, no big surprise here: The root of the problem with this new version of Donnie Darko can be found by going back to that good old saying we all know: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Richard Kelly had a good film on his hands with the original Donnie Darko, but alas, we have here the disappointing failure that is the director's cut. A failure, yes, but an interesting one at that. In a strange way, it's amazing to see Kelly destroy his film, cut by cut, change by change. The reason for the changes is this: Darko was Kelly's first feature, in 2001. Newmarket Films, the company that released the film, wanted Kelly to cut it down from its original cut of 132 minutes, to 113 minutes. This is completely understandable. The film was a weird little movie, and they wanted to get it under 2 hours so that the most people possible could see it. Kelly agreed, and the film was released that way. It bombed at the box office, but it grew a huge fan base on video. Kelly was then given the chance to edit a director's cut for release in theaters. I had a feeling about this director's cut, the first time I heard about it. My feeling was that any reasons for the original film being good were just a fluke, and that as soon as Kelly was able to apply his original "vision" to the movie, it would collapse. Well, my suspicions were correct. This may be the first time that a director's cut has actually significantly worsened a film. It's one of those cases where the filmmaker compromises in the face of problems that he has, and actually makes a better film for it. I don't know how good a filmmaker Kelly may really be (when he's not forced to cut things out), but I know now that hardly anything that made the original film good is still surviving in his director's cut.
To be fair, the two films should be considered two separate films. The new film delves more into the science fiction aspect of the story, and really does feel epic in scope. It feels a lot more like a film that's trying to mix a little bit of everything in, more so than the first. The additions feel like way too much in the beginning, and bog it down quite a bit, but when the plot gets into full swing, everything sort of feels just about right. However, the additions aren't just the only thing in here. Many major changes (mostly music changes) plague this version of the film. Right away, the movie starts off on a bad note by replacing Echo and the Bunnymen's "The Killing Moon" with INXS's Never Tear Us Apart. Now, the INXS song was the original choice by Kelly for the opening, but he couldn't afford the song originally. But the funny thing is, "The Killing Moon" actually works a hell of a lot better than his choice, creating a weird sort of atmosphere right from the start (not to mention, the INXS song is slower, and starts the movie off on less of a bang). So anyway, right from the start I had a bad feeling about this. The film continues on, and every few minutes or so, during a scene change, a page from the "Philosophy of Time Travel" book in the film is superimposed into the screen, explaining why things are happening. This was probably what distressed me the most. One of the charms of the original film was how it didn't really overly explain things. The viewer pieced things together in their mind, and at the end, we may not know exactly how every little piece came together, but we understand enough to make the ending of the film work, and it actually comes together as a sort of a simple and beautiful ending, in the midst of the chaos of the rest of the story. Now, I originally thought that that charm was what Kelly intended; not explaining itself, that is. Well, now I know it was obviously because of the cuts he had to make that the first film ended up the way it did. One thing I am glad about, though, is that Kelly didn't change the music that accompanies the last sequence. He originally planned to use the U2 song "MLK." After difficulties obtaining the rights to the song, he decided to use the Gary Jules cover of the Tears for Fears song "Mad World" instead. It's another case of a replacement song working out much better than what he had originally intended to use. Well, he could probably afford the U2 song now, but he didn't change it, and I think it was mostly because the Gary Jules cover has become a big hit itself, and was actually about as popular as the film. Well, at least we didn't lose that.
The last part about this cut that just drives me insane, from a geeky technical viewpoint, is the new sound mix. There are major problems with the new sound mix. The whole thing has been re-mixed for theatrical (and therefore, DVD) release, and the dialogue is BURIED in the mix. You can barely hear it. Especially when you compare it to the old mix. Even worse is the fact that Michael Andrews' score is buried down in the mix also. Everything is drowned out by the sound effects and the bass. I don't know what they were thinking. I was listening to this on a pretty good 5.1 system, turned up pretty loud, and I had to strain to hear voices and the familiar score. A little too much work went into making this movie seem "bigger" than it really is, in terms of the sound. What's even more troubling is the fact that Kelly messed with Michael Andrews' score itself, cutting pieces out here and there, most notably, the opening music cue that plays before the first song is now gone. Wow, way to fuck with a good movie...
Original film:
3 ½ stars (out of five)
Director's cut:
2 stars (out of five)
Maria Full of Grace
The most acclaimed foreign language film of the year, Maria Full of Grace overcomes a slow start and a dragging third act to become one of the more memorable films in recent memory. Catalina Sandino Moreno transcends language in her performance, and all of the supporting players are equally good. The biggest problem with the film is that it relies on its central plot device a little too much (the fact that a girl is transporting drugs to America by swallowing them, and the suspense that arises from that), and everything before and after it suffers a bit because it doesn't have as much punch. The scenes of her training herself to be able to swallow the large pellets with drugs inside, and the subsequent scenes of the trip to America, these sequences are fascinating, and worth the price of admission alone. But the scenes that follow in America just feel phony, and we don't really care about any of the characters besides Maria. Nobody's character is really that well-defined, besides Maria. The rest of the film doesn't quite live up to the originality of the original idea. The middle section in the film, however, dealing with the transporting of the drugs, is riveting. But anyways, it's definitely an above-average film. It doesn't quite deserve the "masterpiece" status it's been getting, but the middle section accomplishes exactly what it tries to do. It's always entertaining, and it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours. Not a bad way at all.
3 ½ stars (out of five)
Vera Drake
What an incredible film. What an incredible work of art this is. I haven't felt this much emotion pouring from a film in years. Every single character is clearly defined, and there's a dozen of them. The family really feels like a family. These people really feel like people. And when everything starts to get torn apart, you feel real emotion. THIS is what a motion picture drama is. THIS is a film that knows exactly what it wants to do, and fucking does it. This is the film that Million Dollar Baby wanted to be. Compared to this, that film is just a picture of a Polaroid of a drawing of a real human drama. Imelda Staunton won all but two of the critics' awards for her performance, and it's easy to see why. The fact that she doesn't have the trophy on her mantle right now shows everything that's wrong with the Academy. She gives - hands down - the best leading actress performance of the year. Anyone that doesn't think so is fucking blind. (My previous pick was Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine...While that's a great one too, this is just amazing). Staunton just blew me away.
And the rest of the picture is at that level, too. Mike Leigh wrote and directed this, and he wisely gives the actors lots of room and lets moments drag out when they need to. In fact, the film didn't even have an actual script - just an outline of scenes and bits of dialogue. The improvisation is part of what makes the family interaction so realistic and therefore makes the tragedy so affecting. But it's all very smooth; you can never tell when a bit was scripted or when it wasn't. And once again, the direction in this was superb. It's a slow movie, but it's wonderfully paced. It's never too slow, it just takes its time. And I have to mention the supporting cast. Even the smallest roles were wonderfully cast and played.
Well that's enough of that. It's a wonderful film though, it really is. And don't be scared off by the subject matter either. It handles it very tastefully. It's a film that really does grab you and doesn't let go. An excellent picture, and a reminder that good, simple films still do exist. Gotta update the Top 10 of the Year List for this one...
5 stars (out of five)
Here's the deal: Closer isn't nearly as dark as you've heard, but it is emotionally brutal. A stellar cast and a show-stopping turn by Natalie Portman highlight this movie, which centers on the love/hate relationships of two couples in London. A lot of it is darkly funny, and one of its charms is that you go from loving the characters to hating them, sometimes all within the same scene. Many people have reported feeling depressed after viewing this film; the fact that they're watching people emotionally destroy others. I have to say that I felt rather differently than that after seeing this. Not happy, per se, but... content. The film really puts in perspective the relationship that you're in (if you're in one, of course) and, in my case, the fact that I could never cheat on anyone. You do feel above these characters after watching, and you feel good about yourself for it.
Mike Nichols (The Graduate) directs this, and the result is electrifying. When people talk, it's more like enemies exchanging gunfire than a conversation. Patrick Marber adapts his play to the screen, and apart from the usual shortcomings such adaptations have, it translates amazingly well. Portman, as I mentioned before, does a 180 degree-turn from anything she's done before, playing an emotionally damaged stripper (pretty crazy for her, I know, but trust me...it works). Clive Owen has become my new person-to-watch, after seeing him in Sin City and this...he definitely has presence. Jude Law somehow shows up in another good movie (he's gotta have the best agent in Hollywood) and he's pretty damn good in it too. The only real drawback is (no surprise) Julia Roberts, who thankfully underacts this time, and so she mostly gets away unscathed here. I suppose this is where we might as well start talking about flaws. Julia is one (and hell, she's not even too bad here), but her character is the biggest flaw in the film. It's the most underwritten of the four characters, and most of the time you don't know why the hell she's doing what she's doing. I would say that that might be the point, but that idea goes out the window as soon as we see the end of her character's dramatic arc, and witness that the filmmakers were going for some sort of emotional resonance with her character that never really hits home, since her character isn't really explored. The others are fully developed, however. The movie doesn't really suffer from the usual feeling of a play adapted to a film; it's probably because the story focuses on just the four people for a reason, within the confines of the story. The dialogue is great too: snappy, fast-paced and brutal. Some sexually explicit talk in there too, so if you're sensitive to that stuff, then I'd think twice before checking it out (it's no more than in Boogie Nights or a Kevin Smith movie, but it is there, so that's your warning).
So, not everyone's cup of tea, but for those who enjoy this type of thing, it's pretty good. Worth a look just for the performances.
3 stars (out of five)Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut
Well, no big surprise here: The root of the problem with this new version of Donnie Darko can be found by going back to that good old saying we all know: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Richard Kelly had a good film on his hands with the original Donnie Darko, but alas, we have here the disappointing failure that is the director's cut. A failure, yes, but an interesting one at that. In a strange way, it's amazing to see Kelly destroy his film, cut by cut, change by change. The reason for the changes is this: Darko was Kelly's first feature, in 2001. Newmarket Films, the company that released the film, wanted Kelly to cut it down from its original cut of 132 minutes, to 113 minutes. This is completely understandable. The film was a weird little movie, and they wanted to get it under 2 hours so that the most people possible could see it. Kelly agreed, and the film was released that way. It bombed at the box office, but it grew a huge fan base on video. Kelly was then given the chance to edit a director's cut for release in theaters. I had a feeling about this director's cut, the first time I heard about it. My feeling was that any reasons for the original film being good were just a fluke, and that as soon as Kelly was able to apply his original "vision" to the movie, it would collapse. Well, my suspicions were correct. This may be the first time that a director's cut has actually significantly worsened a film. It's one of those cases where the filmmaker compromises in the face of problems that he has, and actually makes a better film for it. I don't know how good a filmmaker Kelly may really be (when he's not forced to cut things out), but I know now that hardly anything that made the original film good is still surviving in his director's cut.
To be fair, the two films should be considered two separate films. The new film delves more into the science fiction aspect of the story, and really does feel epic in scope. It feels a lot more like a film that's trying to mix a little bit of everything in, more so than the first. The additions feel like way too much in the beginning, and bog it down quite a bit, but when the plot gets into full swing, everything sort of feels just about right. However, the additions aren't just the only thing in here. Many major changes (mostly music changes) plague this version of the film. Right away, the movie starts off on a bad note by replacing Echo and the Bunnymen's "The Killing Moon" with INXS's Never Tear Us Apart. Now, the INXS song was the original choice by Kelly for the opening, but he couldn't afford the song originally. But the funny thing is, "The Killing Moon" actually works a hell of a lot better than his choice, creating a weird sort of atmosphere right from the start (not to mention, the INXS song is slower, and starts the movie off on less of a bang). So anyway, right from the start I had a bad feeling about this. The film continues on, and every few minutes or so, during a scene change, a page from the "Philosophy of Time Travel" book in the film is superimposed into the screen, explaining why things are happening. This was probably what distressed me the most. One of the charms of the original film was how it didn't really overly explain things. The viewer pieced things together in their mind, and at the end, we may not know exactly how every little piece came together, but we understand enough to make the ending of the film work, and it actually comes together as a sort of a simple and beautiful ending, in the midst of the chaos of the rest of the story. Now, I originally thought that that charm was what Kelly intended; not explaining itself, that is. Well, now I know it was obviously because of the cuts he had to make that the first film ended up the way it did. One thing I am glad about, though, is that Kelly didn't change the music that accompanies the last sequence. He originally planned to use the U2 song "MLK." After difficulties obtaining the rights to the song, he decided to use the Gary Jules cover of the Tears for Fears song "Mad World" instead. It's another case of a replacement song working out much better than what he had originally intended to use. Well, he could probably afford the U2 song now, but he didn't change it, and I think it was mostly because the Gary Jules cover has become a big hit itself, and was actually about as popular as the film. Well, at least we didn't lose that.
The last part about this cut that just drives me insane, from a geeky technical viewpoint, is the new sound mix. There are major problems with the new sound mix. The whole thing has been re-mixed for theatrical (and therefore, DVD) release, and the dialogue is BURIED in the mix. You can barely hear it. Especially when you compare it to the old mix. Even worse is the fact that Michael Andrews' score is buried down in the mix also. Everything is drowned out by the sound effects and the bass. I don't know what they were thinking. I was listening to this on a pretty good 5.1 system, turned up pretty loud, and I had to strain to hear voices and the familiar score. A little too much work went into making this movie seem "bigger" than it really is, in terms of the sound. What's even more troubling is the fact that Kelly messed with Michael Andrews' score itself, cutting pieces out here and there, most notably, the opening music cue that plays before the first song is now gone. Wow, way to fuck with a good movie...
Original film:
3 ½ stars (out of five)Director's cut:
2 stars (out of five)Maria Full of Grace
The most acclaimed foreign language film of the year, Maria Full of Grace overcomes a slow start and a dragging third act to become one of the more memorable films in recent memory. Catalina Sandino Moreno transcends language in her performance, and all of the supporting players are equally good. The biggest problem with the film is that it relies on its central plot device a little too much (the fact that a girl is transporting drugs to America by swallowing them, and the suspense that arises from that), and everything before and after it suffers a bit because it doesn't have as much punch. The scenes of her training herself to be able to swallow the large pellets with drugs inside, and the subsequent scenes of the trip to America, these sequences are fascinating, and worth the price of admission alone. But the scenes that follow in America just feel phony, and we don't really care about any of the characters besides Maria. Nobody's character is really that well-defined, besides Maria. The rest of the film doesn't quite live up to the originality of the original idea. The middle section in the film, however, dealing with the transporting of the drugs, is riveting. But anyways, it's definitely an above-average film. It doesn't quite deserve the "masterpiece" status it's been getting, but the middle section accomplishes exactly what it tries to do. It's always entertaining, and it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours. Not a bad way at all.
3 ½ stars (out of five) Vera Drake
What an incredible film. What an incredible work of art this is. I haven't felt this much emotion pouring from a film in years. Every single character is clearly defined, and there's a dozen of them. The family really feels like a family. These people really feel like people. And when everything starts to get torn apart, you feel real emotion. THIS is what a motion picture drama is. THIS is a film that knows exactly what it wants to do, and fucking does it. This is the film that Million Dollar Baby wanted to be. Compared to this, that film is just a picture of a Polaroid of a drawing of a real human drama. Imelda Staunton won all but two of the critics' awards for her performance, and it's easy to see why. The fact that she doesn't have the trophy on her mantle right now shows everything that's wrong with the Academy. She gives - hands down - the best leading actress performance of the year. Anyone that doesn't think so is fucking blind. (My previous pick was Kate Winslet in Eternal Sunshine...While that's a great one too, this is just amazing). Staunton just blew me away.
And the rest of the picture is at that level, too. Mike Leigh wrote and directed this, and he wisely gives the actors lots of room and lets moments drag out when they need to. In fact, the film didn't even have an actual script - just an outline of scenes and bits of dialogue. The improvisation is part of what makes the family interaction so realistic and therefore makes the tragedy so affecting. But it's all very smooth; you can never tell when a bit was scripted or when it wasn't. And once again, the direction in this was superb. It's a slow movie, but it's wonderfully paced. It's never too slow, it just takes its time. And I have to mention the supporting cast. Even the smallest roles were wonderfully cast and played.
Well that's enough of that. It's a wonderful film though, it really is. And don't be scared off by the subject matter either. It handles it very tastefully. It's a film that really does grab you and doesn't let go. An excellent picture, and a reminder that good, simple films still do exist. Gotta update the Top 10 of the Year List for this one...
5 stars (out of five)
Saturday, April 09, 2005
The last Loveline thing, I swear
This is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. It really is. One of the dumbest girls of all time calls up Loveline, and... Well, I'll just let this speak for itself:
Phone sex girl calls up Loveline for advice (MP3, 2 MB).
Phone sex girl calls up Loveline for advice (MP3, 2 MB).
Loveline, yet again
I realize this is really late, seeing as the whole situation is more or less over, but I never got around to posting this until now... I was going to post my opinion on the Terri Schiavo case; my long and drawn out opinion on it, until I came across Drew and Adam's take on it, from Loveline. Drew puts it rather wonderfully, better than I could ever express it, and it pretty much matches my opinion spot on. I wasn't quite sure what my opinion of all this was, until I did a little background on it, and I discovered that in the condition she was in, the part of the brain that processes pain (and therefore also joy and happiness and self-awareness) was LIQUID. That sort of cemented the whole argument to me. And here's Drew and Adam's take (MP3, 2 MB).
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Monday, April 04, 2005
Sin City
Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's Sin City can be described with many words, all of them different: Fun, frustrating, subtle, overblown, disgusting, thrilling, terrifying, suspenseful, boring, fascinating, morbid, offensive, funny, sick, insane, sexy, slick, overlong, too short, reckless, careful, crazy, and above all, entertaining.
It's a strange bird, this one... What it does (and successfully, for the most part) is to make a film that intentionally takes away the audience's emotional attachment to the characters, and yet still holds attention and still holds suspense. You feel almost nothing for them in a "conventional" sense. You don't have that feeling as you do in most films where, in your mind, you're putting yourself in their position, saying "what would I do?" You're just sitting back, enjoying the ride, eagerly anticipating the next development.
The film is, without a doubt, one of the first to ever truly translate the feeling and tone of a graphic novel/comic to the screen. The film knows exactly what it is... the dialogue is corny, but played in such a tongue-in-cheek fashion that that's frankly where most of the laughs come from... the fact that everyone knows that this is something that is larger than life. And the violence actually gets so extreme and over-the-top that sometimes you can't help but just laugh at the absurdity of it all. Nothing is really taken too seriously in this world that they've created. And back to the laughs I mentioned before... it may not seem like it from everything you've heard or read about it, but this is a pretty damn funny movie. The audience I saw it with was laughing and clapping and really getting into it. I definitely think you've accomplished something in a film, when you have older people in the audience (50s and 60s) who are laughing at limbs being cut off and people being beaten to a pulp. Anyway, it's all being done to people who deserve it in the film, so it's definitely a crowd-pleasing sort of thing.
If you can't stomach graphic violence, then do not see this film... I was talking to Mike on the phone a few minutes before the movie started (he had seen the movie the night before), and he described the violence as "brutal". And brutal it is - limbs and body parts fly everywhere, and the only real reason the film has an R rating is because the blood is yellow and white instead of red (the old Hong Kong movie trick - also used in Kill Bill - where the most violent scenes in the film are in black and white, and therefore less realistic, and more likely to get by the MPAA unscathed...but of course all of this film is in black and white anyway). But almost all the violence in the film seems warranted - mostly because of the tongue-in-cheek tone the film has.
There are negatives to the film, however. The beginning of the film uses a child in jeopardy in an unnecessarily, disgustingly manipulative way (the moment does bring huge amounts of suspense, however) and the film itself (2 hours, 6 minutes) could be about 10 minutes shorter (it drags the most during Clive Owen's segment). But all in all, it's amazingly strong and assured. I went into the film wondering how Roger Ebert could have given as much praise as he did (four stars) to the film. I came out understanding why he did (although I wouldn't rate it as high as he did).
I was actually thinking, watching the beginning of the movie, that this might turn out to be a total piece of shit... it took me until about half way into the 3rd segment, the Mickey Rourke segment (which is about 30 minutes into the film) for me to finally get into the rhythm of the film and get into its humor. I noticed a lot of the audience did, too. No one really laughed until the same point in the film, where Rourke has a funny line of dialogue...the audience was relaxed by then, and everybody laughed. I don't know what it was for them, but for me it basically took me that long to get into it because the 2nd segment, with the kidnapped girl, left such a bad taste in my mouth (don't worry, she isn't killed or anything...to the contrary: she grows up to be Jessica Alba) that it actually took that long for me to realize that the entire film wasn't going to be as dark as that. On the whole, it is a dark, gruesome film. And after I saw it, I liked it, but I didn't think it was going to be something I was going to see again for awhile. But now as time passes, I'd really like to see it again to see how my reaction is.
The acting is also something strange. At first glance, it doesn't look like anything special, and even looks bad at times...but looking closely at the subtle nuances in the performances, you can see that every line in the film is drenched in camp. It's actually pretty amazing, if you look at it closely: the performances ride a very fine line. Very rarely (although it does, on occasion) does it ever cross the line and go into a sort of Batman TV show version of Sin City... in other words, a movie that's trying to be crazy, but takes itself seriously and isn't in on the joke. But yeah, a huge cast... Clive Owen is pretty damn interesting in this; I haven't really seen him in anything and it really makes me want to see Closer even more. Bruce Willis plays a variation on his tough-guy persona; he does a better than average job. Rosario Dawson really stands out here; she just surges with a raw sexuality and a fierceness. Jessica Alba is basically just eye candy here; she isn't that good when she speaks, but she hardly does, so it works. Nick Stahl is pretty insane in this...but I won't give it away... The rest of the cast (Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Alexis Bledel, Josh Hartnett, Michael Madsen, Carla Gugino, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jaime King, Benicio Del Toro) are basically just glorified cameos, but Del Toro particularly stands out. The direction is strong, mostly because Rodriguez based shots directly on Frank Miller's images, shot by shot (which is a big reason why Miller has a co-director credit) and translated them to the film. The story is in non-linear structure, which definitely helps keep the film moving, and it never feels bogged down.
The film itself looks amazing, but it's (amazingly) not just about flaunting the look in this film, a la Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow... I'm not convinced at all by Rodriguez's claims that shooting on digital is better rather than film. First of all, I'll always be one of those people who loves the look and the feeling of something shot on film. Say what you want, but it just feels different to me. I know George Lucas shot parts of his first Star Wars prequel on digital and the rest on film and dared anyone to be able to pick out which was which, but a movie just feels different when it's shot digital. Not bad, just different. I don't know if it ever will look like film, but at least right now, it doesn't. It's too smooth, too sharp, too much like...video.
I've heard that Rodriguez plans to shoot more of Miller's stories and translate them to the screen, for a sequel. I'd welcome that... I'd have no problem watching another one of these films.
It's a strange bird, this one... What it does (and successfully, for the most part) is to make a film that intentionally takes away the audience's emotional attachment to the characters, and yet still holds attention and still holds suspense. You feel almost nothing for them in a "conventional" sense. You don't have that feeling as you do in most films where, in your mind, you're putting yourself in their position, saying "what would I do?" You're just sitting back, enjoying the ride, eagerly anticipating the next development.
The film is, without a doubt, one of the first to ever truly translate the feeling and tone of a graphic novel/comic to the screen. The film knows exactly what it is... the dialogue is corny, but played in such a tongue-in-cheek fashion that that's frankly where most of the laughs come from... the fact that everyone knows that this is something that is larger than life. And the violence actually gets so extreme and over-the-top that sometimes you can't help but just laugh at the absurdity of it all. Nothing is really taken too seriously in this world that they've created. And back to the laughs I mentioned before... it may not seem like it from everything you've heard or read about it, but this is a pretty damn funny movie. The audience I saw it with was laughing and clapping and really getting into it. I definitely think you've accomplished something in a film, when you have older people in the audience (50s and 60s) who are laughing at limbs being cut off and people being beaten to a pulp. Anyway, it's all being done to people who deserve it in the film, so it's definitely a crowd-pleasing sort of thing.
If you can't stomach graphic violence, then do not see this film... I was talking to Mike on the phone a few minutes before the movie started (he had seen the movie the night before), and he described the violence as "brutal". And brutal it is - limbs and body parts fly everywhere, and the only real reason the film has an R rating is because the blood is yellow and white instead of red (the old Hong Kong movie trick - also used in Kill Bill - where the most violent scenes in the film are in black and white, and therefore less realistic, and more likely to get by the MPAA unscathed...but of course all of this film is in black and white anyway). But almost all the violence in the film seems warranted - mostly because of the tongue-in-cheek tone the film has.
There are negatives to the film, however. The beginning of the film uses a child in jeopardy in an unnecessarily, disgustingly manipulative way (the moment does bring huge amounts of suspense, however) and the film itself (2 hours, 6 minutes) could be about 10 minutes shorter (it drags the most during Clive Owen's segment). But all in all, it's amazingly strong and assured. I went into the film wondering how Roger Ebert could have given as much praise as he did (four stars) to the film. I came out understanding why he did (although I wouldn't rate it as high as he did).
I was actually thinking, watching the beginning of the movie, that this might turn out to be a total piece of shit... it took me until about half way into the 3rd segment, the Mickey Rourke segment (which is about 30 minutes into the film) for me to finally get into the rhythm of the film and get into its humor. I noticed a lot of the audience did, too. No one really laughed until the same point in the film, where Rourke has a funny line of dialogue...the audience was relaxed by then, and everybody laughed. I don't know what it was for them, but for me it basically took me that long to get into it because the 2nd segment, with the kidnapped girl, left such a bad taste in my mouth (don't worry, she isn't killed or anything...to the contrary: she grows up to be Jessica Alba) that it actually took that long for me to realize that the entire film wasn't going to be as dark as that. On the whole, it is a dark, gruesome film. And after I saw it, I liked it, but I didn't think it was going to be something I was going to see again for awhile. But now as time passes, I'd really like to see it again to see how my reaction is.
The acting is also something strange. At first glance, it doesn't look like anything special, and even looks bad at times...but looking closely at the subtle nuances in the performances, you can see that every line in the film is drenched in camp. It's actually pretty amazing, if you look at it closely: the performances ride a very fine line. Very rarely (although it does, on occasion) does it ever cross the line and go into a sort of Batman TV show version of Sin City... in other words, a movie that's trying to be crazy, but takes itself seriously and isn't in on the joke. But yeah, a huge cast... Clive Owen is pretty damn interesting in this; I haven't really seen him in anything and it really makes me want to see Closer even more. Bruce Willis plays a variation on his tough-guy persona; he does a better than average job. Rosario Dawson really stands out here; she just surges with a raw sexuality and a fierceness. Jessica Alba is basically just eye candy here; she isn't that good when she speaks, but she hardly does, so it works. Nick Stahl is pretty insane in this...but I won't give it away... The rest of the cast (Elijah Wood, Brittany Murphy, Alexis Bledel, Josh Hartnett, Michael Madsen, Carla Gugino, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jaime King, Benicio Del Toro) are basically just glorified cameos, but Del Toro particularly stands out. The direction is strong, mostly because Rodriguez based shots directly on Frank Miller's images, shot by shot (which is a big reason why Miller has a co-director credit) and translated them to the film. The story is in non-linear structure, which definitely helps keep the film moving, and it never feels bogged down.
The film itself looks amazing, but it's (amazingly) not just about flaunting the look in this film, a la Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow... I'm not convinced at all by Rodriguez's claims that shooting on digital is better rather than film. First of all, I'll always be one of those people who loves the look and the feeling of something shot on film. Say what you want, but it just feels different to me. I know George Lucas shot parts of his first Star Wars prequel on digital and the rest on film and dared anyone to be able to pick out which was which, but a movie just feels different when it's shot digital. Not bad, just different. I don't know if it ever will look like film, but at least right now, it doesn't. It's too smooth, too sharp, too much like...video.
I've heard that Rodriguez plans to shoot more of Miller's stories and translate them to the screen, for a sequel. I'd welcome that... I'd have no problem watching another one of these films.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
[My list of] The Best Films of 2003
(last year)
(Click on each of the films below to see a clip/trailer from each)
Paul Thomas Anderson's next film!
The word has come out on PT Anderson's next movie... it will most likely be an adaptation of the 1927 Upton Sinclair novel "Oil!" ...Daniel Day-Lewis looks to be the star.
I'm so excited about this!... I look forward to his films the way people used to look forward to Stanley Kubrick's movies when they came out. This should be really interesting: it's the first film he's ever done that's not based on one of his own original screenplays, and it will be interesting to see a PTA film that takes place during the 20's. It will also be PTA's first political film, as it deals with oil scandals involving people in office (hmm, sounds familiar...) so that should be interesting to see.
It seems as if Paul is unfortunately having trouble getting financing for the picture...it is a period piece, so the budget automatically doubles right there, and it looks to be an epic film with lots of characters and a long running time. His movies always make their money back, but hardly ever turn a profit...studios might be hesitant to greenlight a 3-hour film about a dozen people in the 1920's... Hopefully everything will work out and it will see its way to the screen.
My mind's going crazy now with the possible cast... and will this end up being the PTA musical that he's been talking about doing for years and years? And will this be the one that wins him an Oscar? I guess only time will tell (although I do hope he changes the title)...
I'm so excited about this!... I look forward to his films the way people used to look forward to Stanley Kubrick's movies when they came out. This should be really interesting: it's the first film he's ever done that's not based on one of his own original screenplays, and it will be interesting to see a PTA film that takes place during the 20's. It will also be PTA's first political film, as it deals with oil scandals involving people in office (hmm, sounds familiar...) so that should be interesting to see.
It seems as if Paul is unfortunately having trouble getting financing for the picture...it is a period piece, so the budget automatically doubles right there, and it looks to be an epic film with lots of characters and a long running time. His movies always make their money back, but hardly ever turn a profit...studios might be hesitant to greenlight a 3-hour film about a dozen people in the 1920's... Hopefully everything will work out and it will see its way to the screen.
My mind's going crazy now with the possible cast... and will this end up being the PTA musical that he's been talking about doing for years and years? And will this be the one that wins him an Oscar? I guess only time will tell (although I do hope he changes the title)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
