House
Directed by: Nobuhiko Obayashi
Starring a bunch of hot Asian girls
Combination H.R. Pufnstuf, Yellow Submarine and your worst/best acid trip; House will freak you out.
Too ridiculous to be frightening but too damn entertaining to dismiss, House seems to combine nearly every genre of film in a way that feels both amateurish and sharply brilliant. Some movies throw the kitchen sink at you; House goes in and gets the tub.
It has a plot. Let’s see … boy meets girl, boy loses girl, girl gets swallowed by a piano. Well, that’s not quite accurate but accuracy in a review of House would seem entirely inappropriate.
I saw it during a matinee and there were a decent amount of people there having a good time and some laughs but when I walked by tonight, there was a huge line-up for the evening show. I think that would be a great way to see House, with a packed, well … house; because more than anything else, House is funny.
Ironically, it has a very typical straight forward horror movie “plot.” A young woman doesn’t like her new step-mom so she goes off to visit her Aunt she hasn’t seen in years with six of her best friends. The house, the Aunt and a cat team up to destroy/possess/eat all the girls--the end. There, I’ve ruined it for you.
But I haven’t. The plot that you can see coming from a mile a way isn’t the point. It’s the journey that gets you there, man, it’s the journey. In fact, the film has great fun with its standard plot and stock characters; they’re even named for exactly what they are: Gorgeous is gorgeous, Kung Fu kicks ass, Prof is the smart one, Melody is the musician, and so on. The director’s having so much fun the actress’s even sneak coy little looks straight to the camera as if to say, “Wait till you see what’s next.” And that’s just it, you may have a good guess, my fellow film buff, as to what’s next, but you have no idea how they’re going to do it, say it, or present it, and especially, how many body parts will be lost.
The actresses relish their stereotypes ‘r us characters, but my favourite is Kung Fu; not just because she spends most of the movie running around in her underwear. I like her attitude. I believe most of us would like to think that we’d be brave enough to react to a witch/ghost/apparition by kicking it in the face.
Wildly entertaining, endlessly creative, funny and fun, House demands your attention.
May you be turned into a pile of bananas if you don't check it out.
Point of interest: Remarkably, this is the Toronto premiere for a cult classic that’s more than thirty years old. The Bloor saves us again. It makes me want to say the prayer I say every night, “Thank you baby Jesus for daisies, Ziggy comics, soft, fluffy bunnies, and the Bloor.” It’s also just been released on DVD by Criterion, but see it on the big screen with an audience if you get a chance.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Robin Hood: Review
Robin Hood
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett and some guy from Great Big Sea
The best part of Robin Hood is the end credits.
This is not a good sign.
What exactly is wrong with Robin Hood? It’s not like Ridley Scott is some hack—Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down, to name just a few pieces of Scott’s considerable body of work. A fine collection of actors has been brought together as well; Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are a few names most producers would be ecstatic to have attached to their projects.
No, Robin Hood suffers from something else. It just seems to wonder through the story, trying to get a foot-hold somewhere and never quite succeeding; and worse, it’s a pale reflection of other, similar but better movies. Obviously, the first reminder/let-down is Gladiator, another Scott/Crowe flick about a brave, truthful warrior who must fight tyranny against all odds. Robin Hood is Gladiator’s poor, somewhat embarrassing cousin. Where Gladiator is clear, concessive and compelling, Robin Hood is disjointed, lumbering and muddled. Other movies are planted in one’s mind while watching Robin Hood as well. With Kate Blanchett involved in a film about a woman fighting for her standing in “old-timey” England, we naturally think of Elizabeth, especially when she dons her armour. And the scene where the French land in England is straight out of Saving Private Ryan, just sub in the arrows and shields.
Some have criticized Robin Hood for being historically inaccurate, which is kind of like saying Miracle on 34th St. isn't factually correct. It’s not that the history is inaccurate, which it is (Robin Hood’s dad wrote the Magna Carta! No Way! Totally Dude! What’s the Magna Carta?); it’s the process of bringing all the historical “tweaks” together that bogs the film down. We are an hour and twenty minutes into the film before Robin Hood does anything at all like Robin Hood. It’s not that I don’t like a good back story, Batman Begins does a good job with it; but Robin Hood seems to be trying to give every character and every historical event its own private back story, so we end up with plenty of back story and not enough story itself.
Despite the strong actors, the acting isn’t always bang-on either. Russell Crowe is believable, but has picked some weird hybrid accent of Irish/Scottish that is for the most part indecipherable. There are a few times in the film when actors speaking French have subtitles, but I longed for them more whenever Russell was speaking. Kate Blanchett is good, so is William Hurt, and Oscar Isaac is petulant enough for Prince/King John. And I have to mention Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle as one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. He is primarily the minstrel and he doesn’t speak all that much, but it’s a bigger role than any Canadian actor had in Chloe, so good for him.
So, should you see Robin Hood? Well, there is lots of action for a movie that still feels slow. The film looks pretty good. Kevin Costner is nowhere in sight. Mark Strong makes a pretty cool bad guy. The Bloor has the best popcorn in the city, and like I said, the end credits rock. So if you must--see it, but only at the Bloor; to support our beloved theatre … and for the popcorn.
Point of Interest: The film ends by suggesting that the legend is “just beginning.” So, now that they've got all the crap out of the way they'll make a good movie, just not this one. Funnily enough, you sort of do feel like you’d want to see the next movie. The next movie looks great, fun and exciting; man I wish I could see that movie. Ironically, we probably won’t see that film since Robin Hood didn’t do all that well with the critics and more importantly, with the North American snack bar audience.
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett and some guy from Great Big Sea
The best part of Robin Hood is the end credits.
This is not a good sign.
What exactly is wrong with Robin Hood? It’s not like Ridley Scott is some hack—Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise and Black Hawk Down, to name just a few pieces of Scott’s considerable body of work. A fine collection of actors has been brought together as well; Russell Crowe, Kate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow and William Hurt are a few names most producers would be ecstatic to have attached to their projects.
No, Robin Hood suffers from something else. It just seems to wonder through the story, trying to get a foot-hold somewhere and never quite succeeding; and worse, it’s a pale reflection of other, similar but better movies. Obviously, the first reminder/let-down is Gladiator, another Scott/Crowe flick about a brave, truthful warrior who must fight tyranny against all odds. Robin Hood is Gladiator’s poor, somewhat embarrassing cousin. Where Gladiator is clear, concessive and compelling, Robin Hood is disjointed, lumbering and muddled. Other movies are planted in one’s mind while watching Robin Hood as well. With Kate Blanchett involved in a film about a woman fighting for her standing in “old-timey” England, we naturally think of Elizabeth, especially when she dons her armour. And the scene where the French land in England is straight out of Saving Private Ryan, just sub in the arrows and shields.
Some have criticized Robin Hood for being historically inaccurate, which is kind of like saying Miracle on 34th St. isn't factually correct. It’s not that the history is inaccurate, which it is (Robin Hood’s dad wrote the Magna Carta! No Way! Totally Dude! What’s the Magna Carta?); it’s the process of bringing all the historical “tweaks” together that bogs the film down. We are an hour and twenty minutes into the film before Robin Hood does anything at all like Robin Hood. It’s not that I don’t like a good back story, Batman Begins does a good job with it; but Robin Hood seems to be trying to give every character and every historical event its own private back story, so we end up with plenty of back story and not enough story itself.
Despite the strong actors, the acting isn’t always bang-on either. Russell Crowe is believable, but has picked some weird hybrid accent of Irish/Scottish that is for the most part indecipherable. There are a few times in the film when actors speaking French have subtitles, but I longed for them more whenever Russell was speaking. Kate Blanchett is good, so is William Hurt, and Oscar Isaac is petulant enough for Prince/King John. And I have to mention Great Big Sea’s Alan Doyle as one of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. He is primarily the minstrel and he doesn’t speak all that much, but it’s a bigger role than any Canadian actor had in Chloe, so good for him.
So, should you see Robin Hood? Well, there is lots of action for a movie that still feels slow. The film looks pretty good. Kevin Costner is nowhere in sight. Mark Strong makes a pretty cool bad guy. The Bloor has the best popcorn in the city, and like I said, the end credits rock. So if you must--see it, but only at the Bloor; to support our beloved theatre … and for the popcorn.
Point of Interest: The film ends by suggesting that the legend is “just beginning.” So, now that they've got all the crap out of the way they'll make a good movie, just not this one. Funnily enough, you sort of do feel like you’d want to see the next movie. The next movie looks great, fun and exciting; man I wish I could see that movie. Ironically, we probably won’t see that film since Robin Hood didn’t do all that well with the critics and more importantly, with the North American snack bar audience.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Review
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Directed by: Niels Arden Oplev
Starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist
As Kodos and Kang would say: “Holy Fleurking Schnit!”
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo freakin’ rips it and does so in an art-house, intelligent way.
It’s a wonderful juxtaposition when a film can take it’s time, but never feel slow; build character without grinding to a halt; maintain suspense without lowering itself to the lowest common denominator; and keep you engaged and guessing throughout.
Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is a reporter (remember them?) who actually does investigate stories rather than just releasing press kits, but gets set up for a fall from one of his corporate targets. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth Salander, an ex-con working for a security firm who has been hired to check out Blomkvist. Salander is complex, has a dark past, is unpredictable … and has a dragon tattoo.
Despite his guilty conviction of libel, Blomkvist is hired to investigate a 40 year old murder. The man employing Blomkvist is industrialist Henrik Vagner, trying to solve the mystery of who killed his beloved niece. Vagner is convinced that the perpetrator is someone within his own family as he is sent a yearly birthday token from the killer simply to torture him. Of course, Vagner’s suspicions are all speculation as no one knows exactly what happened 40 years ago and it’s Blomkvist who’s been brought in, in one last attempt to decipher a case that has stumped investigators for decades.
Lisbeth Salander develops an interest in Blomkvist while investigating him on behalf of Vagner and keeps tabs on him after the assignment is done. Thus, she is dragged into the case as well when she cracks a code that was in the victim’s diary. Allowing herself to get drawn in, she teams up with Blomkvist to investigate the murder together. Since I loathe reviews that do nothing but rehash the plot and in the process give away nearly the entire movie, the plot summary is going to have to stop right here … oooh, intrigued?
You should be. This movie pulls together all the elements of the story without letting the ball ever hit the floor. The film makers and actors deserve high praise for creating a film that runs nearly two and a half hours but feels considerably shorter.
Perhaps most exciting of all is that a new cinematic character, Lisbeth Salander, has been unleashed upon the public. Tough as nails, smart as a whip, beautiful but not pretty, Salander is easy to root for even though you’re not quite sure what’s going on inside her mind. Congratulations to Noomi Rapace for so successfully realizing this intriguing figure; oh, and make sure you see this movie before the inevitably lousy American version hits the screens.
Point of Interest: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the first movie based on a series of books written by Stieg Larsson called the Millennium Trilogy. The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest are the last two. The story behind these books is as fascinating as the books themselves. Larsson was an investigative journalist/activist who probed extreme right and racist organizations and had to live the last several years of his life under death threats. The Millennium books were found and published after his passing and have become a world-wide phenomenon. I have yet to read the books myself (I’ll start after seeing the Played with Fire film) but based on this movie, I’m looking forward to diving in. I would love to hear any comments from people who have read the books to hear whether you think they did a good job with the adaptation.
Directed by: Niels Arden Oplev
Starring Noomi Rapace and Michael Nyqvist
As Kodos and Kang would say: “Holy Fleurking Schnit!”
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo freakin’ rips it and does so in an art-house, intelligent way.
It’s a wonderful juxtaposition when a film can take it’s time, but never feel slow; build character without grinding to a halt; maintain suspense without lowering itself to the lowest common denominator; and keep you engaged and guessing throughout.
Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) is a reporter (remember them?) who actually does investigate stories rather than just releasing press kits, but gets set up for a fall from one of his corporate targets. Noomi Rapace plays Lisbeth Salander, an ex-con working for a security firm who has been hired to check out Blomkvist. Salander is complex, has a dark past, is unpredictable … and has a dragon tattoo.
Despite his guilty conviction of libel, Blomkvist is hired to investigate a 40 year old murder. The man employing Blomkvist is industrialist Henrik Vagner, trying to solve the mystery of who killed his beloved niece. Vagner is convinced that the perpetrator is someone within his own family as he is sent a yearly birthday token from the killer simply to torture him. Of course, Vagner’s suspicions are all speculation as no one knows exactly what happened 40 years ago and it’s Blomkvist who’s been brought in, in one last attempt to decipher a case that has stumped investigators for decades.
Lisbeth Salander develops an interest in Blomkvist while investigating him on behalf of Vagner and keeps tabs on him after the assignment is done. Thus, she is dragged into the case as well when she cracks a code that was in the victim’s diary. Allowing herself to get drawn in, she teams up with Blomkvist to investigate the murder together. Since I loathe reviews that do nothing but rehash the plot and in the process give away nearly the entire movie, the plot summary is going to have to stop right here … oooh, intrigued?
You should be. This movie pulls together all the elements of the story without letting the ball ever hit the floor. The film makers and actors deserve high praise for creating a film that runs nearly two and a half hours but feels considerably shorter.
Perhaps most exciting of all is that a new cinematic character, Lisbeth Salander, has been unleashed upon the public. Tough as nails, smart as a whip, beautiful but not pretty, Salander is easy to root for even though you’re not quite sure what’s going on inside her mind. Congratulations to Noomi Rapace for so successfully realizing this intriguing figure; oh, and make sure you see this movie before the inevitably lousy American version hits the screens.
Point of Interest: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the first movie based on a series of books written by Stieg Larsson called the Millennium Trilogy. The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest are the last two. The story behind these books is as fascinating as the books themselves. Larsson was an investigative journalist/activist who probed extreme right and racist organizations and had to live the last several years of his life under death threats. The Millennium books were found and published after his passing and have become a world-wide phenomenon. I have yet to read the books myself (I’ll start after seeing the Played with Fire film) but based on this movie, I’m looking forward to diving in. I would love to hear any comments from people who have read the books to hear whether you think they did a good job with the adaptation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpeg)