Now watching...

Battleship (2012: Peter Berg) **½/****

After watching the film I talked to my favorite barista about watching the film and he gave me a look as if I had brought a Starbucks coffee in while simultaneously dragging dog poop on my shoe onto their carpet (he is an indie movie fan with some knowledge of Criterion). He asked me if it was like the trailer and my response was it was cinematic fast food and I prefer watching a CGI action-fest at the theater than later watching it on the television. He said all was forgiven since I had seen Badlands the night before.

This is basically a mix between Transformers and Independence Day with an ending inspired by Space Cowboys. It is a Navy recruitment film that is impressive with its massive use of CGI and the awesome destroyers and battleships portrayed in the film. The aliens are as one-dimensional as their use in Independence Day, but there were a couple of scenes that had me pondering if they were going to be any humanistic approach to the attackers, but alas it was not so.

Taylor Kitsch with his haircut straight out of John Carter is the lead as the intelligent but wayward brother of Navy Commander Stone Hopper who has had it with his brother’s shenanigans and after the most inept robbery of a frozen burrito, forces him to enlist in the Navy. He is successful there, but his tomfoolery has him on the verge of being discharged until … The aliens come. Meanwhile his girlfriend, who is the daughter of an Admiral (Liam Neeson, who is in this a lot less than the trailers had led you to believe; I always enjoy watching him though) is stuck on an island with a disabled Army vet (Gregory D. Gadson) and is another invasion point for the aliens.

The film has been a big hit worldwide making at least 50 million in China alone (second recently to the rerelease of Titanic there). It will be interesting to see if it breaks the 100 million mark here in the US.

This is a big dumb clichéd action film. I liked it more than say Transformers because of more realized secondary characters, more humor, no Michael Bay overly used shaky-cam direction and a little bit of naval strategy. Like Red Cliff, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is quoted (and misquoted in this film for a specific joke), though the strategic moments are less sagacious here than in Red Cliff. It almost has you feeling that they could beat an overly equipped military that should have destroyed them in seconds. Of course you also realize that if they were more patient early on they could have been more successful as well. It is probably best not to think much about the plot and just enjoy the visceral visual destruction.

And stay after the credits. There is a couple-minute segment that may or may not lead to a sequel. It seems like all special effects oriented films (and crappy comedies) are adding that extra scene though you have to wait several minutes while every single CGI animator that worked on the film is mentioned from various countries.

some comments on:

Dark Shadows (2012: Tim Burton) ***/****

Johnny Depp embodies Barnabas Collins with panache and relish with an aperitif of ghoulish gothic charm that sets a tone the film ultimately cannot keep up with. Burton’s set design and flowing direction conforms to his auteuristic universe while Danny Elfman’s score fits a Burton movie like an English aristocrat in a personally tailored Savile Row suit. But the conspicuous mismatched attire, akin to wearing Air Jordans with slacks and the rub to the film is the plot. It is a meandering mess at times, forgetting about secondary characters for long stretches, changing tones and moods at a capricious rate that makes one wonder if there was a finished script. Since this movie was based on a series, that I have not seen, was it trying to include too much from its origins?

Ultimately I enjoyed the film and forgave many of its flaws. I am a Depp and Burton fan. If you are not you might have more issues with the film that I do, though I am not itching to see it again anytime soon.

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:my response was it was cinematic fast food and I prefer watching a CGI action-fest at the theater than later watching it on the television.

My thoughts on films like this exactly. I'm planning on seeing BATTLESHIP on the big screen at some point either this week or next (and hopefully before it disappears). I have major issues with all of the TRANSFORMERS movies, but I still had to see them in the theatre. It just felt . . . right. Of this summer's "event" pictures, I've only seen AVENGERS (twice!) and SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN so far, but hope to fill in some gaps. I can wait for DARK SHADOWS on DVD based on the reviews it got. Conversely, I still gotta see PROMETHEUS on the big screen in spite of the mixed early reviews it's been getting from across the pond. Might even check out MIB3 if time permits, though it's not my favourite franchise going. And don't tell anyone this, but I seriously almost attended a showing of PIRANHA 3DD in Montreal last week, only because I had a free night and nothing much else to do, until I noticed that in Quebec, R-rated movies are open to viewers 16 and up, whereas here in Ontario, they're open only to those 18 and up. That two year difference was enough to tip me out the door. Although, from what I've read about the film's dire quality (even in comparison to its kitschy predecessor) and its box-office performance on the weekend, skipping it may have been the right decision regardless.

I'll have a more complete update of stuff I've watched soon, for those apparently still participating in this thread! Just now regaining a sense of normalcy after several crazy weeks at work.

I really enjoyed The Avengers. I might see it a second time.

Men in Black III (2012: Barry Sonnenfeld) ***/****:

There is nothing overly surprising about this film other than the fact that they made this, but I liked it more than the second film (which I did not hate though) and not as much as the first which had the freshness of originality. I like sci-fi buddy cop comedy movies involving the space-time continuum and this is a pleasant fun film to watch in the theater.

Boris the Animal, I mean just plain Boris is a career intergalactic nasty criminal who was just broke out of jail using the most obvious way possible – a loaded cake. He is an insect-like humanoid and a host to a symbiotic insect which also does his bidding in dispatching. Boris, played with glee by Jemaine Clement, then went back in time to kill his captor Agent K thereby changing the future and dooming the Earth to annihilation. It also gave Agent J a nasty headache and a thirst for chocolate milk. He is also the only one who knows of the previous existing reality. So he has to go into the past, find a younger Agent K, and prevent his death to save the future.

Josh Brolin does a spot-on imitation of a younger Agent K (older: Tommy Lee Jones), though it should not be too surprising since he did a very good George W. Bush in W. And his characterization works natural with his budding partnership with Agent J (Will Smith). It is good to see Will Smith act again with is last role in 2008’s Seven Pounds and it looks like he will be upcoming in several sequels including Hancock 2, Bad Boys 3, and possibly I Robot 2.

Nice ending which wraps things up in a humanistic way and you get to find out why K is the future surly curmudgeon.

Always good to see David Rasche work. Too bad the Sledge Hammer movie never came about.

I am surprised on how popular this is. It already has passed the 100 million mark here in the US. I like to go at early times on week days to avoid crowds and my employment. But this had a decent crowd for a 2:00 PM Thursday (summer days tend to bring in more early on weekdays as well). Poor Battleship caught in between The Avengers and this. Well maybe not poor, it has made a lot of money overseas.

There is no extra ending here. So you can bolt as soon as you see the typical upward scrolling credit.

I am so tired of the same damn Pepsi commercial with Elton John they play at beginning before the trailers start at the local theater I attend. I have seen it so many times that I start thinking critically about the commercial like if the singer (Melanie Amaro) is supposed to be singing a cappella why is her voice digitally edited and random thoughts like where does Elton John gets his shoes? I still amazed that people laugh at the commercial, but then they probably do no go to the theater as much as I do.

Thanks for the tip on the MIB end credits. Always nice to know when I can skip out on the credits (since they're all over the web anyways).

Anyways, here's what I've seen lately, with only sporadic notes since I finished compiling this on my lunch break at work :

THE AVENGERS (2012) 10/10
Best super-hero movie ever made, and there've been some great ones in recent years. Can't wait for the next spin-offs and the inevitable sequel(s).

OSS 117: CAIRO, NEST OF SPIES (2006) 7/10
Lighthearted spoof of 1950's French spy movies, particularly the long running series of films based on the same character. Had to see this (and its sequel, hopefully soon) after watching Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo do such great work together in THE ARTIST.

LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972) 6/10

HEIST (2001) 8/10

BATTLE LOS ANGELES (2011) 6/10
Pretty sad what passes for depth in some science-fiction films these days.

RED RIDING: 1974 (2009) 8/10
RED RIDING: 1980 (2009) 8/10
RED RIDING: 1983 (2009) 8/10

OKLAHOMA! (1955) 8/10

SOUTH PACIFIC (1958) 7/10
Leaning toward a 6 on this because it's so blandly filmed.

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) 7/10

THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE (2003) 8/10
Great movie, but the annoying theme song keeps creeping back into my head at the most inopportune times.

THE 39 STEPS (1935) 9/10
Thought I’d seen this years ago, but turns out this was the first time. It goes without saying that this film laid the groundwork for some of Hitchcock’s later productions. 

HEAD ON (2004) 8/10
Turns out the star of this compelling drama, Sybil Kekilli, was outed as a former hardcore porn starlet with at least nine "anything-goes" pictures to her pseudonymous credit shortly after winning a Best Actress Lola award for this picture (the resulting furor caused her previously oblivious and conservative Turkish family to sever all ties with her). Such knowledge can't help but cast her performance in HEAD ON in a different light. What I first thought was a daring and raw performance by an unformed, captivating newcomer was suddenly just another exploited porn star grabbing for legitimacy with a role that's borderline autobiographical. Seriously, how hard is that with a director like Fatih Akin at the helm? Regardless, it seems to have propelled her career further than just about any other porn queen in existence because she's now a regular on GAME OF THRONES and various German TV series. She's certainly more fortunate than most who toil in her former profession, but I'm still not convinced her post-porn success is entirely deserved. Maybe I should think more European . . .

KES (1969) 9/10

JUSTIFIED: THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON 8/10
The first episode and the final four are uncommonly strong TV storytelling.

JUSTIFIED: THE COMPLETE SECOND SEASON 9/10
Even better than the first season, with a stronger through-story and a knockout performance by Margo Martindale as Mags Bennett.

JOSIE AND THE PUSSYCATS (2001) 6/10
Better than I’d expected, and nicely pointed in its satire of pre-fab pop bands of the era. 

HOUDINI (1953) 6/10

THOSE DARING YOUNG MEN IN THEIR JAUNTY JALOPIES (1969) 5/10
Opulent but dramatically, comically inert sequel to THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN AND THEIR FLYING MACHINES. Lots of elaborate stunts and special effects, but the cast appears to have rarely left the soundstage. Leading man Tony Curtis brings his 60’s couture to a movie set in the 1920’s. 

ART & COPY (Documentary; 2009) 8/10

THE GENIUS OF DESIGN (Documentary;  2010) 9/10

It wasn’t my intention to watch these next three together; they were just in my library stack this way!
JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR (1973) 8/10
Speaking of porn stars, there’s one in this, too. 
RELIGULOUS (Documentary; 2008) 7/10
Bill Maher shoots fish in a barrel. It’s funny, but you start to sympathize with his “victims” after awhile. He seems to have chosen interview subjects who best represent the more oddball leanings of their respective faiths. 
COOL HAND LUKE (1967) 9/10
Some read this as a Christ allegory, and there’s certainly more than enough going on in it to back up that theory.

FLOWER DRUM SONG (8/10)

RICHARD III (1955) 8/10

LARS AND THE REAL GIRL (2007) 8/10

SINBAD: LEGEND OF THE SEVEN SEAS (2003) 7/10
THE ROAD TO EL DORADO (2000) 7/10

DEATH ON THE NILE (1978) 7/10

THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY (1980) 8/10

CATWOMAN (2004) 4/10

MAN ON WIRE (2008) 8/10

SHADOWS (1959) 8/10

SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNSTMAN (2012) 7/10

SAMURAI (1954) 8/10
SAMURAI II (1955) 7/10
SAMURAI III (1956) 7/10

From the Harry Houdini SIlent DVD Collection
THE MASTER MYSTERY (1920) 6/10
TERROR ISLAND (1920) 6/10
THE MAN FROM BEYOND (1922) 6/10
HALDANE OF THE SECRET SERVICE (1923) 5/10
Interesting curios all, but clearly made (mostly by his own company) to capitalize on Houdini's fame. His general lack of charisma doesn't help their dull plots and pacing. HALDANE is easily the worst of the bunch, with its awkward and bald-faced inserting of footage of Houdini traipsing around Europe into the plot. MAN FROM BEYOND is probably the best, and its fantastical premise predestines any number of future movies about men confronting modern times — and pursuing seemingly reincarnated lovers — after having been frozen in ice for decades. And the chapter play MASTER MYSTERY features what one of the earliest (if not the first) onscreen portrayals of a robot . . . well, sorta!

A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG (1967) 5/10
Charlie Chaplin's last directorial (and brief acting) endeavor surely must be one of his worst. Terribly stagy in ways that even his silents never were, and painfully unfunny. Clearly he was completely off his game at this point; his locked-down camerawork suggests he thought what was happening in front of it — which he apparently wrote for himself back in 1931(!) — was so golden all on its own that movement and editing were nearly unnecessary. Furthermore, at no point did I actually feel like I was on a boat, which is where nearly the entire film is set! Brando's also miscast. Some IMDB reviewers seem to think the film didn't deserve its original critical savaging because of Chaplin's lifetime body of work, which is ridiculous: even former geniuses make bad decisions, and this clearly was one.

TRIUMPH OF THE WILL (1935) 7/10

THE RED VIOLIN (1998) 8/10

RANGO (2011) 8/10

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004) 9/10
Didn't expect to like this one as much as I did, though I doubt I'll revisit it any time soon.

500 DAYS OF SUMMER (2009) 8/10
Another one I didn't expect to like because Zooey Deschanel's just to quirky for my palette, but her character is so well written here that I could overlook it just this once. Plus that left-field musical number's a real treat!

RISKY BUSINESS (1983) 7/10

THE BAND WAGON (1953) 9/10

SPACED: THE COMPLETE SERIES (1999) 7/10
A cute series that wears out its welcome after a while, and I wasn't even watching the episodes back to back! Had I seen this in 1999, I'd have thought most of the constant pop culture references were annoyingly precocious — and too obvious — even then.

SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER … AND SPRING (2003) 9/10

POLYTECHNIQUE (2009) 8/10

A NOUS LA LIBERTE (1931) 8/10

And from my own sordid purchases: 

Exploitation Cinema Double Feature
TEENAGE MOTHER (1967) 5/10
TEENAGE GRAFFITI (1977) 5/10

Something Weird Triple Feature
EVIL COME EVIL GO (1972) 4/10
TERROR AT ORGY CASTLE (1972) 2/10
THE HAND OF PLEASURE (1971) 2/10

Back to the stack. Finishing up DESIGN FOR LIVING when I get home tonight, then on to ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, then back to the library to see what's waiting for me on the shelf. The list is getting shorter . . .

Plumbing Ethnicity: Sandler’s Jack, Jill and Tyler Perry by Armond White

When you go into a film that has been called the worst movie of the year by many and had got a Razzie Award sweep, an extremely low Rotten Tomato score as well as a very low IMDB score one would expect an atrocious and incompetent film along the lines of Mortal Kombat: Annihilation or Furry Vengeance and one would have trouble finishing the film. While I do not recommend it and I currently have it in the lower half of 2011 films, there were enough laughs throughout that kept in interested in what was going to happen next. I would easily rather watch this movie again than 1911 (2011: Jackie Chan/Li Zhang), Paul (2011: Greg Mottola) or the other Dennis Dugan film of the year Just Go With It. Now for a supremely obnoxious duo lets make a film with Paul and Jill.

Jill is a supremely annoying character. I do not feel she is anymore annoying than previous Adam Sandler roles such as Little Nicky or The Waterboy though. Part of Sandler’s shtick in his standup and movie roles has been to use irritating shrill voices for socially maladjusted people who you would normally want to avoid any interaction with. But for an absurdist comedy these types of characters have a place. But when they go overboard with their behavior like with the running gag of her not knowing movie titles it does grate on ones nerves since it was not funny the first time it was done. And you sometimes have trouble understanding why Jack’s wife and kids like her.

For me the movie was funniest when it was not involved with Jill. In fact I chuckled at many parts of the film and I do not do that much with comedies now because I have seen so many of them. I loved seeing Al Pacino getting so much time for his bizarre performance as himself. That commercial was awesome, but not as much as his reaction to seeing it.

After watching too many Sandler films I feel you can call him an auteur. Analogous with Michael Bay it is not sacrosanct to do so, but it is true. While Dugan is the director, there is a telling scene in the extras of this DVD where Pacino states in an unused bit where he basically makes a statement that alludes that Sandler is in charge. Sandler reuses actors, themes, characters (both credited and uncredited) throughout his films that I am surprised when reviews state how horrid this is yet praise his earlier features that have many of the same qualities as this movie.

Wow, an Armond White review with a moist reach-around for Michael Bay. You don't read that very often . . .

Brian T wrote:Wow, an Armond White review with a moist reach-around for Michael Bay. You don't read that very often . . .

I'm not a fan of Michael Bay (though I do like THE ROCK), but many ciniphiles forget that directors they might not like can be auteurs as well . I believe Armond White is a fan of some of the Michael Bay films.

Hey, it is fun putting together completely different references together.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012: John Madden) ***½/****

This is done in the network narrative style (always a critical favorite style) of Grand Hotel. Here we follow several beautiful English elders and how their lives interact with each other and with Jaipur India. They signed up to stay at a plush and elegant hotel for the elderly and beautiful for a reasonable amount. But when they arrive at the resort it is not quite what is in the brochure. It is quaint, a bit dilapidated and it is run by the well-meaning but slightly incompetent Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel: Slumdog Milllionaire) who is simultaneously trying to make a name for himself with the hotel so he can be a suitable husband for his girlfriend and a suitable son for his mother and hopefully improve from his third favorite son status.

The story is narrated through, though not limited by, Evelyn Greensalde (Judi Dench) who has been a housewife all of her life, but her recently passed husband left her finances in shambles. In addition, there is a retiree Graham Dashwood (Tom Wilkinson) who previously lived in India as a youth and is looking for something from his past. There is Muriel Donnelly (Maggie Smith) who needs a hip operation and finds it cheap and fast in India. However, she is an unabashed racist. Add in the bickering couple of Douglas Ainslie (Bill Nighy: Hot Fuzz) and his wife Jean who is by far the most frustrating character in the movie. And rounding out this English wild bunch is the female and male romantically longing and sexually frustrated Doppelgangers Madge Hardcastle (Celia Imrie) and Norman Cousins (Ronald Pickup: Prince of Persia). Will these two get together? Who will get together among these expatriates?

In some ways the film is quite predictable. I knew someone was going to die of a heart condition, though they joke with it early in the film and the trailer I saw months back as well. It is a given that the cantankerous and racist ways of Muriel Donnelly will soften. I believe we know what will happen with Sonny’s relationship in his relationship triangle with his mom and girlfriend. But with a mixture of storylines it was wise to not leave everything happy and to tease about some relationships but not to pursue them.

This is a fun and uplifting film with performances from a cast that improves the atmosphere. India is shown beautifully here with a dichotomy between the new and old most easily seen in the architecture though noticeable in the personal interactions there as well from the arranged marriage to the untouchables.

The oldest crowd I have been a part of in years or ever. I was the second youngest there and the youngest was an apparently bored looking teenage girl stuck with her parents. I tend to go at early times to avoid crowds, but the 3:20 PM showing was rather busy. Of course they show the Pepsi commercial I have mentioned several times after the equally obnoxious Fandango advertisement. Apparently senior citizens also find Flavor Flav funny. Older crowds tend to be more polite and tend to be more courteous with the cell phone use (or do not own one). One phone did go off (I bet it was the young girl), but that individual was quickly pounced upon.

Is anyone else going to see this in the theater or waiting for BD/DVD?

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:I'm not a fan of Michael Bay (though I do like THE ROCK), but many ciniphiles forget that directors they might not like can be auteurs as well . I believe Armond White is a fan of some of the Michael Bay films.

Hey, it is fun putting together completely different references together.

White practically worships the ground Bay walks on. Like White, I've long agreed that Bay IS an auteur, but I would never go to White's fawning, often purely contrarian lengths to explain it again and again and again (What's he hoping for? A cameo?). His films and his style really are unlike anyone else's, and I usually find something to marvel at in each of them despite the sore eyeballs and headache I inevitably have when I leave the theatre (where they simply have to be seen). Of course I also find plenty of things to hate in his films, some of which can be credited to Bay and some of which can be attributed to his screenwriters, especially on the TRANSFORMERS movies.

The Little Girl that Lives Down the Lane (1976) C+

A mystery that lacks mystique but otherwise garnished plenty of controversy for its implicit and explicit content that managed to receive a PG rating. According to the IMDB Jodie Foster let slip once that this is one of her least favorite pictures though her performance is brimming with the kind of God-given confidence that helped the young actress transition from child star into competent adult actress.

God Bless America (2011) B-

A cheap bump of catharsis, perhaps, but I took real pleasure in watching Bobcat Goldthwait's poorly penned characters punish a number of America's pop culture pariahs. Does it send the wrong message? Maybe but at least one group had it coming.

The Avengers (2012) B-

A good comic book film that's getting way too much attention which will undoubtedly translate into more and more and more comic book adaptations, prequels, sequels, reboots, and so and so and so on. Do we really need to revisit the origins of "Spider-Man"? I for one am ready for this fad a la the obsessions with zombies to pass into the night and the box office move onto to something else -- ANYTHING ELSE!!!

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011) A-

Elizabeth Olsen shows real promise as an actress unlike her older twin slaves to bad fashion sisters who are still [somehow] riding the fame of their work as child stars.

Angel Heart (1987) B

Django (1966) B-

With this week's release of Tarantino's "Django Unchained" teaser I'm interested in what he's doing with this spaghetti western of grindhouse repute.

MacGruber (2010) B-

Better than what it deserves to be.

X-Men: First Class (2011) B+

Everything I wanted from the largely disappointing "X-Men" adaptations and was often previously denied.

A Separation (2011) A

Great films are still with you days later and this one stuck with me for at least a week.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) B+

A couple more I remembered after hitting the Send button last time...

The Raid: Redemption (2011) C

A Western director living out his fantasy of making an Asian action vehicle: it's "Die Hard" on meth which is my chief complaint though I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that winds up somewhere on the DVD sleeve. Repetitive, undistinguished, underwhelming and I hope you're all sitting down for this: the protagonist is just trying to make it out alive to get back to his pregnant wife.

Young Adult (2011) B+

Many have derided writer Diablo Cody for what they feel is undeserved praise on "Juno" (2007) and celebrated when "Jennifer's Body" (2009) tanked with seemingly everyone but hopefully "Young Adult" can help convince some that fell off the bandwagon and others who were never on it to begin with that Cody is a little more than just a former stripper/phone sex operator who got her foot in the door by writing punk girl kitsch. "Young Adult" by contrast is like "My Best Friend's Wedding" (1997) with none of the cute and a lot of painful doses of reality for its protagonist without the usual heavy-handedness found in a lot of comedy-dramas penned by female writers.

Chronicle (2012) B

I've grown fairly weary of found footage films of late and had someone pitched "found footage...teens...superpowers" I would have red lighted it before they were able to pluralize power but this is actually an entertaining film even if all the cliches are present and the script was a tad derivative at times.

I might work on this some more, but things keep coming up so I’ll just post what I got done today. There are some potential spoilers so you might want to avoid the last couple of paragraphs.

The Grey (2012: Joe Carnahan) ***½/****

Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
Live and Die on this day.
Live and Die on this day.

There is an underlying and pervasive horror aspect to this film like a mix of Predator and The Lost Patrol. If you have seen either of these two films you get the idea of the flow. The film is as unrelenting and unremorseful as the wolves. A group of oil workers and a paid-for-hunter (Liam Neeson) Ottway in Alaska miraculously survive a plane crash only to find themselves hunted by a pack of wolves lead by a vicious alpha-male.

Ottway is the alpha-male among the surviving crew and just a few hours ago before the wreckage he almost committed suicide. The work season was over and with some apparent issues with his wife (shown in flashbacks) he contemplated ending it all. The crash just emboldened his will to live. His monomania helps his survival but it is not necessarily the best thing for the others even though they are instrumental in his keeping alive.

I like how the film takes an explicit existentialist approach. It is a particular bleak film with a doleful outlook. But Ottway never quits in his rebuttal against his surroundings and his almost determined fate. Neeson's performance is particular affecting and one of the best I have seen this year. It is a film that depressed me, but I found myself contemplating the allegories and situations of the characters. There are some scenes that are as scary and disturbing to me as any horror film.

There is an extra little bit after the credits which lead you to believe the fate of one but not necessarily the other of the final fight.

I have read many arguments on the plausibility of the film with most focusing on the strategy of leaving the airplane.* There are others but the issue I have with many of these arguments is that they focus on the mistakes of the individuals as opposed to the mistakes of the filmmakers. While I would be weary of stating that this film is about realism, I am not weary to argue that many of the “mistakes” are intentional.

* The plane (being an older aircraft) should have had a 121.5 ELT which is outdated and not as effective as later models. Should the film have gone over discussing this? Ottway took the position of being a realist and his character had dealt with the company so I’m going to side on his judgment though he does make several mistakes in the film that the film acknowledges as well as he does toward the end of the movie.

http://www.elt406.net/faq.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_radiobeacon

Random Notes: there a couple of interesting mentions of movies including Training Day, Alive and The Wolf Man. There are a couple of jokes here that I have used in the past about Alive. Always enjoy hearing Irish jokes on Neeson’s behalf.

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:The Hunger Games (2012: Gary Ross)

It is easy to find similarities between films as well as between books. But I do wonder how Suzanne Collins can claim that she never heard of the film Battle Royale? There are so many similarities between the two. I wouldn't call it a rip-off or a remake but more of a re-imagining, but still there are way too many coincidences (way too many). Just type in "battle royale hunger games" in Google and you get way too many links that discuss this topic with every imaginable position taken.

The cinematography starts off annoying with overused shaky hand-held even for conversation scenes. I noticed the edge bounce back and forth and I keep having to divert my eyes back to the characters to pay attention to the dialog. The action scenes have the same issue as many films of late in which the camera just goes berserk as if Michael Bay's spirit was in control. This type of action really annoys me because it is shoddy, it takes away from potentially interesting fight/action scenes and it just seems so cheap.

I actually like the film (giving it either a **½ or *** out of ****). It isn't great, it's derivative and it certainly is not among the better dystopian movies, but there is a certain charm with the lead actress (not necessarily believable, but I'm not sure anything in the film was), her relationships and I'm glad they spent more time building up to the contest (though Woody Harrelson's alcoholic trainer character has been done over-and-over). Though there was some introspection by the characters in the movie, one would expect more for individuals put into this situation. The ending of the contest was so-so with one idiotic twist coming late (I know it was in the book) and yes bureaucrats can be that stupid (you hope they won't ...), but it was just annoying. Of course it easily leads to a sequel which we already know is coming because the box office has been so good as well as there are two other books.

We finally saw this last night, at one of the few remaining theatres in all of Toronto still showing it. Pretty much everything I was expecting, for better and for worse. "Reimagining" is right, but where the makers of BATTLE ROYALE kept the "outside world" largely offscreen (though clearly contemporary), undoubtedly for fear of having to provide reams of explanation for "how it all came to this" and thus slowing the action down to a crawl or otherwise breaking it up (much as Fukasuku did with his needless "Special Edition", THE HUNGER GAMES — movie and novel, I'm presuming — take elaborate pains to show us the "outside" in all it's quakers-vs-esthetes glory, not only taking good hour to set up what BATTLE ROYALE did in it's opening credits (!), but subjecting the core story — which is still a decent one — to near-death by a thousand questions pertaining to everything that surrounds it. The costuming and makeup on the Capitol-dwellers really bothered me. I get what the designers were trying to achieve, but it's just not a look that would evolve naturally after the apparent near-extinction of our own present kind, then a period of "peaceful times" (or whatever they called it) and then a sort of second cultural evolution. It's the concept of a writer who's not a very good futurist, and I think it will seriously date the film in a few years' time. I just kept scanning every crowd shot to see which extras — or supporting characters — looked the silliest with their frou-frou mascara and cellophane highlighted pseudo-Victoriana. But I guess it's all in the book, and if they confined themselves to the drama unfolding in the arena, the similarities to BATTLE ROYALE would be all the more explicit. I also don't get the connection between the techs swishing their fingers around their control panels and seemingly creating things that then appear in the games, such as the demon dogs in the third act. They're clearly real, but why would the technicians need to make so many swipes and flicks to unleash them in the game? Why not just press a button that opens that trap doors at a convenient time? Or can the magic demon dogs get moved or teleported as need to various entry portals within the arena? And is the arena as laden with trap doors as it is with cameras? Actually, HUNGER GAMES is probably the first movie I've seen where the use of hidden cameras on a massive scale is actually done correctly. We never see the POV of the filmmakers on the screens the outsiders watch (thank god!); only the POVs of the hidden cameras. I always thought the otherwise excellent TROPIC THUNDER crumbles slightly when you consider the logistics of Nick Nolte's advice to Steve Coogan to just stick "a buncha cameras" all over the jungle to make his movie. The odds of capturing anything useful — let alone worthy of a feature film — would plummet to near zero. At least the arena in HUNGER GAMES has been used for so many decades that the thought of it being absolutely stuffed with hidden cameras actually makes sense. I gave it a 7/10 at IMDB, but I'm kinda leaning toward a 6 the longer I think about it.

Cash wrote:The Raid: Redemption (2011) C A Western director living out his fantasy of making an Asian action vehicle: it's "Die Hard" on meth which is my chief complaint though I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that winds up somewhere on the DVD sleeve. Repetitive, undistinguished, underwhelming and I hope you're all sitting down for this: the protagonist is just trying to make it out alive to get back to his pregnant wife.

Can't entirely agree with you on this one. In my experience, the western directors who live out their fantasies making "Asian" (as in Asian-styled) action vehicles are usually the ones who make direct-to-video silliness like this one or this one or dozens like this, this and this. I'm not sure I'd put Gareth Evans in that camp, especially based on his previous film MERENTAU, which wears its Indonesian-ness much more openly because its makers felt no need to present their high-concept calling card to the world at large just yet. Evans is a guy who seems to have made a genuine effort to assimilate into and understand his adopted culture (even putting down roots) before he ever raised eyebrows in the film industry there, which to my knowledge marks him as one of a very few (if any!) to actually do so and then stay in his adopted Asian land to make quality films, at least for a while, even as the job offers started pouring in from the U.S. studios. THE RAID definitely dusts off a couple of tropes that are familiar from American action movies, as Cash notes, but the fact is they're reliable ones and they work, and in Indonesia, both they and the film's nearly unheard of (by Indonesian standards) production values elevated the finished product far beyond the endlessly mediocre fare local audiences had been accustomed to — in diminishing quality and to diminishing returns — for decades. The martial arts choreography in both MERENTAU and THE RAID represents the evolution of (and a substantial improvement on) Indonesia's long but history of martial arts cinema. But where those films were clumsy and never had much impact off of domestic soil, THE RAID was clearly designed to do just that while bringing the country's unique fighting style to the screen largely for the first time. In fact, it practically had to be designed to appeal to as broad an international audience as possible — and even arguably deculturalized and dumbed down a bit — if Indonesia was ever going to re-energize its moribund film industry, and in that sense, it may very well have succeeded. To expect something wholly original from the country is to place undue demands on a film culture that is still nascent in many ways even after decades of existence. As for the DVD sleeve, I'm bettin' they're likely gonna use that gigantic quote from Twitchfilm that graces the film's theatrical poster, and easily represents the most egregious conflict-of-interest in many a moon.

Cash wrote:The Avengers (2012) B-A good comic book film that's getting way too much attention which will undoubtedly translate into more and more and more comic book adaptations, prequels, sequels, reboots, and so and so and so on. Do we really need to revisit the origins of "Spider-Man"? I for one am ready for this fad a la the obsessions with zombies to pass into the night and the box office move onto to something else -- ANYTHING ELSE!!!

Hey, as long as they make superhero movies as great (not good, Great! How dare you, sir! ) as THE AVENGERS, and they treat the source material with the kind of respect it was usually denied in the pre-CGI day (and even during >>coughDAREDEVILcough<<), I don't care if they make super-hero movies until the cows come home. From the sounds of it, we've got at least FOUR more entries in this interlocked series already in the pipeline. There are so many errors in judgment littering Hollywood's past when it comes to superhero movies that I'm always eager to see things put right (not that that always ends up happening, but I stay hopeful). Mind you, I'm not sure we needed a new SPIDER-MAN franchise so soon after a perfect decent one ended, but whatever, I'll be there with bells on. Now Batman, on the other hand, there's a character I've just never really understood, even as far back as my comic book geek days ("I only bought them to learn how to draw. I swear!" ). I mean, he's just a regular guy. With money and gadgets. And a cool car. But he's just a guy. Nothing particularly super about him, except that super-annoying way he spoke in the second movie. Guess I gotta go see it, but still . . .

Brian T wrote: ... We finally saw this last night, at one of the few remaining theatres in all of Toronto still showing it. Pretty much everything I was expecting, for better and for worse. "Reimagining" is right, but where the makers of BATTLE ROYALE kept the "outside world" largely offscreen (though clearly contemporary), undoubtedly for fear of having to provide reams of explanation for "how it all came to this" and thus slowing the action down to a crawl or otherwise breaking it up (much as Fukasuku did with his needless "Special Edition", THE HUNGER GAMES — movie and novel, I'm presuming — take elaborate pains to show us the "outside" in all it's quakers-vs-esthetes glory, not only taking good hour to set up what BATTLE ROYALE did in it's opening credits (!), but subjecting the core story — which is still a decent one — to near-death by a thousand questions pertaining to everything that surrounds it. The costuming and makeup on the Capitol-dwellers really bothered me. I get what the designers were trying to achieve, but it's just not a look that would evolve naturally after the apparent near-extinction of our own present kind, then a period of "peaceful times" (or whatever they called it) and then a sort of second cultural evolution. It's the concept of a writer who's not a very good futurist, and I think it will seriously date the film in a few years' time. I just kept scanning every crowd shot to see which extras — or supporting characters — looked the silliest with their frou-frou mascara and cellophane highlighted pseudo-Victoriana. But I guess it's all in the book, and if they confined themselves to the drama unfolding in the arena, the similarities to BATTLE ROYALE would be all the more explicit. I also don't get the connection between the techs swishing their fingers around their control panels and seemingly creating things that then appear in the games, such as the demon dogs in the third act. They're clearly real, but why would the technicians need to make so many swipes and flicks to unleash them in the game? Why not just press a button that opens that trap doors at a convenient time? Or can the magic demon dogs get moved or teleported as need to various entry portals within the arena? And is the arena as laden with trap doors as it is with cameras? Actually, HUNGER GAMES is probably the first movie I've seen where the use of hidden cameras on a massive scale is actually done correctly. We never see the POV of the filmmakers on the screens the outsiders watch (thank god!); only the POVs of the hidden cameras. I always thought the otherwise excellent TROPIC THUNDER crumbles slightly when you consider the logistics of Nick Nolte's advice to Steve Coogan to just stick "a buncha cameras" all over the jungle to make his movie. The odds of capturing anything useful — let alone worthy of a feature film — would plummet to near zero. At least the arena in HUNGER GAMES has been used for so many decades that the thought of it being absolutely stuffed with hidden cameras actually makes sense. I gave it a 7/10 at IMDB, but I'm kinda leaning toward a 6 the longer I think about it.
...
Hey, as long as they make superhero movies as great (not good, Great! How dare you, sir! ) as THE AVENGERS, and they treat the source material with the kind of respect it was usually denied in the pre-CGI day (and even during >>coughDAREDEVILcough<<), I don't care if they make super-hero movies until the cows come home. From the sounds of it, we've got at least FOUR more entries in this interlocked series already in the pipeline. There are so many errors in judgment littering Hollywood's past when it comes to superhero movies that I'm always eager to see things put right (not that that always ends up happening, but I stay hopeful). Mind you, I'm not sure we needed a new SPIDER-MAN franchise so soon after a perfect decent one ended, but whatever, I'll be there with bells on. Now Batman, on the other hand, there's a character I've just never really understood, even as far back as my comic book geek days ("I only bought them to learn how to draw. I swear!" ). I mean, he's just a regular guy. With money and gadgets. And a cool car. But he's just a guy. Nothing particularly super about him, except that super-annoying way he spoke in the second movie. Guess I gotta go see it, but still . . .

You are definitely correct about the costumes. Fits in a goofy dystopian film, but hurts any seriousness or allegories you might try to state. I've read a few reviews on the film from fans of the book who were fans of the movie because it stayed "faithful" to the book. This is not always good for non-fans of the books like us who spot something that does not necessarily translate well to the movie world. I have the film currently at 7/10 (***/****).

I wasn't so sure they needed the magic demon dogs. It felt too much like lets get this over with. Wouldn't you want to drag it out for ratings?

I'm annoyed that a new Spiderman is coming out so soon (for me it feels way too soon). I liked the previous trilogy. The new Peter Parker from the trailers seems a bit too sarcastic as well (but that's just according to the trailer, we will see how his characterization is in the film).

As you probably already know I'm a fan of the Burton Batman films. I liked that he was a normal human and I liked what Keaton did with that role.

I didn't write about it, but I really liked The Avengers (***½/****). A crowd-pleaser, yes, but for me quite fun with the characters, plot, working in the previous related films. I wonder if it will lead to another Hulk film? But yes we got Thor 2, Captain America 2 (really looking forward to this one since it will be him adapting to a completely new world), The Avengers 2, Iron Man 3 (also really looking forward to this one).

So far what I've watched for 2012 films (I keep this list up-to-date at criterionforums; not sure why the ordered list is flakey):

These are my films watched that have either a R1/R0 DVD/BD release in 2012 or an American theatrical release of 2012 (whichever comes first). I am going to try to watch more 2012 releases than 2011.

1. The Avengers (2012: Joss Whedon) ***½/****
   Had some serious fun with this film.
   
2. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2012: John Madden) ***½/****
   Slumdog seniors.
   
3. The Grey (2012: Joe Carnahan) ***½/****
   Liam Neeson is quite awesome.
   
4. Prometheus (2012: Ridley Scott) ***½/****
   Beautiful looking and thought provoking sci-fi with a few minor faults.
   
5. Chronicle (2012: Josh Trank) ***/****
   Interesting teen drama with super powers.
   
6. 21 Jump Street (2012: Phil Lord/Chris Miller) ***/****
   So far the funniest film of the year.
   
7. John Carter (2012: Andrew Stanton) ***/****
   Completely overblown, but an engaging film to watch in the theater.
   
8. Dark Shadows (2012: Tim Burton) ***/****
   I enjoyed it, though it could have had better characterization, plot ...
   
9. The Hunger Games (2012: Gary Ross) ***/****
   Makes you think of Battle Royale. With better direction could have been much better.
   
10. Men in Black III (2012: Barry Sonnenfeld) ***/****
    I enjoyed this sequel, just not as much as I thought I was going to.
    
11. Battleship (2012: Peter Berg) **½/****
    You ain't going to sink my battleship!
    
12. The Three Stooges (2012: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly) **½/****
    Most sointely.
    
13. Wrath of the Titans (2012: Jonathan Liebesman) **½/****
    Always fun watching Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Now if there was only a better lead.
    
14. Case de mi Padre (2012: Matt Piedmont) **/****
    I thought it was going to be funny. Silly me.
    

Need to see: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Act Of Valor, Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, Haywire, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, Moonrise Kingdom, The Raven, Safe House, The Secret World of Arriety, Snow White and the Huntsman, The Vow, The Woman in Black

2012 US Box Office Over 100M:
The Avengers
The Hunger Games
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax
21 Jump Street
Safe House
Men in Black III (2012: Barry Sonnenfeld)
The Vow
Snow White and the Huntsman
Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
Journey 2: The Mysterious Island

I was able to avoid the Pepsi commercial and Fandango advertisement by coming in slightly late. I thought it advantageous to sit in the second to last row because of the several people smack dab in the middle (my favorite section) and I was correct until the movie started when an overweight straggler comes in with an oversized tub of popcorn and he decides to sit right behind me. The smell of oil permeated my olfactory senses as rage built up when his wheezing from the stairs was louder than the opening sequence. This was followed by the crunching of the popcorn for the next several minutes. Luckily he was a fast eater.

Some comments on:

Prometheus (2012: Ridley Scott) *** (possibly add a ½)/****

Was there anything more stupid than trying to pet a snake-like creature you understand nothing about? One of the import rules about traveling to unknown places is to treat everything as hostile until you know otherwise. There were a few too many moments like in many horror films where the characters have to do something incredibly dumb to set up their demise. The two running away from the main crew early on was pretty ridiculous, though that was more palpable than the “snake” scene; though now that I think about it one of those two included the same person who had no fear of the fanged Day of the Tentacle creature (fear of dead alien carcasses, no fear of huge tapeworm with teeth).

Where the film is at its best is the visuals, set design and pace of exploration set early in the film. I saw it in 2-D and it looked splendiferous with the look of the barren planet, interior designs of the dome and the CGI (especially inside the “alien” spaceship). There are plenty of quasi-intellectual questions posed in the film such as “where do we came from?”, “who created the creators?” and “why is there fetus in my belly trying to rip its way out?”. The film plays with these questions nicely enough, though I probably could have used more intellectually stimulating scientists.

Noomi Rapace as Elizabeth Shaw continues the strong heroine found in many of Ridley Scott’s movies.

I cannot think of David (Michael Fassbender) without comparing him to Data/Lore (Brent Spiner). Of course Brent had years to work on his character (one of the benefits of television is that it is easier to create a complicated psychological profile for your character than it is in a movie) and helped helm a cult following of his persona. I see a yearning in David in his Pinocchio complex but also an anger brewing underneath the Peter O’Toole exterior almost akin to a walking version of HAL 9000. He is certainly one android that does not appear to be following any of Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics.”

Here is a link to a Ridley Scott interview I have seen posted several places: http://www.movies.com/movie-news/ridley-scott-prometheus-interview/8232

Spoiler:

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:Battleship (2012: Peter Berg) **½/****

Went to see BATTLESHIP last night. Shawn's rating is just about right. I gave it a 6 at IMDB, somewhat against my better judgment as its definitely a guilty pleasure that willfully strains credulity. My eyeballs were rolling pretty hard towards the end, when the film tried to convince me that strategically-released anchors can make a navy warship skid like a bicycle on gravel, and that a decommissioned battleship/destroyer/whatever — much less one that had been turned into a floating museum — would still have live munitions on board and a makeshift, uniformed crew of World War II vets strategically posed about its deck ready to head into action. Recruitment film indeed. The aliens create ships capable of interstellar travel in a matter of what seems like weeks, but which lack onboard technology that might detect a communications satellite in their path. Their battleship fleet, once unleashed on earth, must hop across water to engage their enemy. But whatever; KABOOOOM!!. Director Peter Berg, who also has a fleeting cameo, has essentially made a Michael Bay movie — endless, deafening BAY-SPLOSIONS®™(!!!!!!!) generously infused with rock 'n roll and only the purest corn-fed Americana (buoyed immeasurably by Brooklyn Decker's corn-fed American breasts) — only without Bay's addled editing rhythms and dreadful attempts at humor. One does have to wonder how such barely-fettered American-style jingoism didn't connect with American audiences but did connect with overseas crowds. Granted, blowing up Hong Kong and casting Tadanobu Asano (as a Japanese commander who's third-act manoeuver to defeat the aliens brings the film the closest to recreating the board game on which the it's based) keeps any chest-thumping somewhat in check (though certainly not the film's military fetishism), but such touches in this day and age are mostly bald-faced ploys to boost revenue in Asian markets, where experts of late have repeatedly told us that audiences are still highly receptive to glossy, sparkly, explode-y things, no matter how stupid. Further to that, I can understand the casting of Rihanna due to her worldwide popularity (and/or infamy), but that certainly doesn't make it right. The post-credits sequence was interesting in that it planted the seed for an altogether different kind of sequel (in theory), rather than the usual "more-of-the-same" often promised by such teasers. Not that we'll ever see it happen now, but it was still a nice touch. All of this said, I will buy the Blu-ray at some point.

According to the IMDB trivia section, BATTLESHIP's amusing "chicken burrito robbery" was based on a real-life security camera video that went viral many years ago. For the curious, here it is, nearly scene-for-scene:



Other recent views:

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN (2011) 6/10
Feature spun from the trailer that won a contest tied to the movie GRINDHOUSE. While the trailer, and the opening of this film scream 70's exploitation, the remainder is heavily reminiscent of 80's and 90's Troma productions.
THE SWORD OF DOOM (1965) 8/10
GRAND ILLUSION (1937) 9/10
HUNGER GAMES (2012) 7/10
AMADEUS (1984) 10/10
UP THE YANGTZE (2007) 9/10
WHITEOUT (2009)
I'm a bit of a Dark Castle completist, but boy did they misfire with this one. You can practically sense the misgivings of everyone involved, who must've lost their motivation for a project which probably sounded a lot better on paper.
LOONEY TUNES: BACK IN ACTION (2003) 6/10
Two stars off for Steve Martin's grotesque overacting. The rest was just alright, and thankfully a bit more faithful to the spirit of the characters than SPACE JAM was.
S1MØNE (2002) 5/10
THE ESCAPIST (2008) 7/10
MARATHON MAN 8/10
THE COVE 9/10
SKYLINE 5/10
Not as horrible as the buzz at the time made it sound, but not very original.
LIFE: THE COMPLETE SERIES (2009) 9/10
Flawless technical productions, but best watched in small doses, I think; animals eating each other gets rather repetitive after awhile.
THE NAKED CITY (1948) 9/10
The Toronto library has the OOP Image edition of this in stock. Hopefully Criterion will put their version on Blu-ray some day. A highly influential film.

Brian T wrote:

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:Battleship (2012: Peter Berg) **½/****

... One does have to wonder how such barely-fettered American-style jingoism didn't connect with American audiences but did connect with overseas crowds.
... Further to that, I can understand the casting of Rihanna due to her worldwide popularity (and/or infamy), but that certainly doesn't make it right. The post-credits sequence was interesting in that it planted the seed for an altogether different kind of sequel (in theory), rather than the usual "more-of-the-same" often promised by such teasers.
...

What is weird about the film is that I enjoyed it regardless of its many, many plot faults.

I think the part of the reason who it didn't connect with audiences and has not even passed the 100 million mark here in the States is that it was sandwiched between The Avengers and Men in Black III. I talk to many people about films and several stated that it was a choice between one or the other and they just missed out on the movie. Battleship probably should have been delayed in its States release.

If I was to do a full essay on the film I would definitely add in the mention of casting Rihanna, though I would have to do some research on her because I just really do not know that much about her or her music.

The possibility of a sequel is there if the video sales do really well. They already made back their money on the non-US market (and do you notice a trend with some big money films to be released earlier before the US market like with Prometheus). I kind of get the feeling they want to get it out just in case bad word of mouth happens here in the States. This is just conjecture. What is your opinion?

Brian, I am definitely interested in your opinion on Prometheus. I think it is one that looks great in the theater. I'm conflicted on many points in the film though. Ebert gave it a loving ****/**** review

So far The Grey has been the biggest surprise. It too has some possible plot faults, though those problems actually can fit within the storyline. It has also been a surprising hit with the people I have lent it to. I have others I am going to lend it to, so it will be interesting to see how other people take it. It is a bit too dark to lend to my Dad (who I lend to all the time; guess who got him into Zhang Yimou and Akira Kurosawa).

Not sure what I'm going to watch tomorrow at the theater. I can tell you next week I will be watching Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter -- I've been looking forward to that one for months.

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:What is weird about the film is that I enjoyed it regardless of its many, many plot faults.

I kind of get the feeling they want to get it out just in case bad word of mouth happens here in the States. This is just conjecture. What is your opinion?

I think you're right. Most overseas-first releases (of American studio pictures) are handled softly and quietly, and generally for movies the studios know will underperform on home turf (CASE 39 comes to mind). With BATTLESHIP, which cost a lot more than the usual overseas-first picture, I don't believe Universal thought it had an outright bomb on its hands, just a sizzle-no-steak spectacle that would play better—for at least a month, apparently—in regions where razzle-dazzle alone is enough to put bums on theatre seats these days (China, most obviously, but other countries as well), especially if the show is one that America has neither seen nor subjected to an avalanche of derogatory critical and online feedback. Had BATTLESHIP been released in North America first, it would still have tanked for the reasons it ultimately did, and the stink would've wafted overseas pretty quickly. Reversing the release pattern, in this case, doesn't exactly say much about overseas audiences ("oooh, big, sparkly . . ."). On the other hand, if you split BATTLESHIP's seemingly-impressive international revenue proportionally amongst the approximately 54 countries where it played early, it was probably an unqualified blockbuster in none of them.

it's interesting that THE AVENGERS also played overseas before opening in North America, but only for one week. That seemed like more of a goodwill gesture from a confident studio than Universal unloading BATTLESHIP around the globe more than a month before its domestic bow.

Incidentally, I'm not sure if you meant to say BATTLESHIP should have been delayed or should NOT have been delayed in its U.S., but I believe it should not have. A simultaneous release probably wouldn't have boosted overall revenue by much, but it would've been something.

Nevertheless, I'll be getting the Blu-ray some day.

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:Brian, I am definitely interested in your opinion on Prometheus. I think it is one that looks great in the theater. I'm conflicted on many points in the film though. Ebert gave it a loving [url=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120606/REVIEWS/120609989]****/**** review

I'm hoping to see PROMETHEUS this week actually, next week at the latest. Though I've avoided much of the discussion swirling around PROMETHEUS and its apparently dodgy science due to inevitable spoilers, thoughtful discussion seems to be lively and growing, something you don't see with many science fiction movies these days.

More recent library viewing:

THE COMPLETE JEAN VIGO (Criterion)
A PROPOS DE NICE (1930) 7/10
TARIS (1931) 7/10
ZERO DE CONDUITE (1933) 7/10
L'ATALANTE (1934) 8/10

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: REGENERATION (2009) 6/10
Better than I was expecting (a sentiment shared by someone here as I recall), and with some decent stuntwork overseen by veteran Chuck Picerni, but the barren, often-derelict eastern European locations doubling for Chernobyl and its surrounding environs—no matter their scale—exude an air of cheapness that makes me wish they had just let this franchise die after the first one so it could be properly rebooted today. Can't tell if director John Hyams has a unique fingerprint within this genre; I'd need to see his work without the benefit of his famous father's slick photography.
LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS (1998) 9/10
Much better than I expected. In fact, I avoided this for over a decade because I figured it was another then-trendy Tarantino knockoff, but it's nothing of the sort. Its influences are decidedly British, as is Guy Ritchie's handling of them. In fact, rare was the critic who reviewed the film without invoking either Tarantino's name or that of one or more of his pictures. The Onion's AV Club reviewer is one of the few who (probably deliberately) avoided that name-check and instead searched out decidely local antecedents, the most obvious being TRAINSPOTTING.
THE BURMESE HARP (1956) 7/10
A beautifully-made movie, but one deserving—like the book it's based on—of criticism for its whitewashing of the Japanese presence in Burma (and everywhere else) during the war, and of its hero's decision to convert to Buddhism and spend his days roaming the countryside praying for and burying only the bodies of his fellow Japanese soldiers (such selectivity doesn't seem very Buddhist in any event). Passing nods to Japanese aggression and atrocities are made in the supplemental interviews, but there's a telling ignorance there too. Lead actor Rentaro Mikuni even briefly recalls his real-life bayonet training on animals, then mentions that live prisoners were often substituted, but claims he somehow avoided stabbing the helpless prisoners after running straight at them. One would think his superiors would've taken exception to that, which makes me question such a statement and the swiftness with which he moves on from it.
THE BIG HEAT (1953) 9/10
JONESTOWN: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF PEOPLE'S TEMPLE (2006)
MAGNOLIA (1999) 8/10
UNTHINKABLE (2010) 7/10
THE LAST WALTZ (1978) 8/10
A Hollywood-quality production during the performance sequences, but there's no end of depressing, pretentious "the road is so tough" whinging from members of The Band once they sit with Martin Scorsese for interviews. The drugs they were on probably made these guys think they sounded grizzled and philosophical, but instead they come across as whiny millionaires, though perhaps the first to make a glossy film about it. Even on stage, they all seem rather morose as they work their way through their greatest hits sharing the stage with some powerhouse guest stars. My 8 is generous, but this is still an important document with fantastic music wall to wall.
TRANSSIBERIAN (2008) 6/10
SWIMMING POOL (2003) 7/10

Finishing tonight: GHOST WRITER

Rock of Ages (2012: Adam Shankman) ** to **½/****

Do you ever go see a film because at the time it really was the only thing available that you had not seen? I do enjoy the experience of watching films that are not in my normal repertoire. I do like musicals, but I tend to prefer classic musicals over modern adaptations. I made sure I was early for this one so I could get to see a new Fandango and Pepsi commercial (which I do not even remember right now). Thank goodness there was the Magic Mike trailer. There was quite a motley crowd for this film with one guy who was a complete Doppelganger of Sue’s ex-boyfriend Brad in The Middle and yes some sang to the songs during the film. Luckily they stopped that early though.

Surprisingly I have seen several films directed by Adam Shankman: The Wedding Planner, The Pacifier, Cheaper By the Dozen 2, Bedtime Stories and a few TV shows he has done. There is nothing special and nothing horrid out of that bunch. I suppose if I had seen Hairspray I might have known more of what I was getting into with this film, though I had a pretty good idea by the trailers.

The supporting actors were so much more interesting than the two leads. The biggest issue I had with Diego Boneta in his first non-TV movie and especially Julianne Hough (Footloose) were their singing styles which did not fit the hair metal aesthetics of burnt out and strained vocals. Hough with her pop-sugary renditions of “Harden my Heart” and “Shadows of the Night” made me wince and constantly think of “why did they pick her for the role?” Boneta doing an overly clean version of Dee Snider’s “I Wanna Rock” showed his limitations as well. But add in their on and off again predictable and annoying relationship and what happens with their careers and you get a less than satisfactory story with the exception of Boneta as a boy-band member. That was funny and led to one of the funniest non-Cruise lines in the film.

But most of the supporting characters and especially Cruise’s (yes he does his own singing and decent at that) overindulgent Stacee Jaxx is perfect and the highlight of the film for me. Russell Brand fit perfect in his barclub gopher role as well as Paul Giamatti’s Paul Gill character which is tailor-fit for him. I thought the Whitmores (Bryan Cranston, Catherine Zeta-Jones) were underused and probably could have been removed from the movie. They were the perfunctory upper middle class couple that rebels against the “metal” club, though the two leads were perfunctory as well. I am still not sure what I think of Alec Baldwin’s performance.

Is anyone interested in seeing this or has seen this? I cannot recommend this, but I had an OK time with the film. Take Cruise and his monkey out of this and I would drop this film a half a star.

Random facts: Eli Roth directed the Z Boyeezz's music video in the film. There is nothing after the credits.

3 Idiots (2009: Rajkumar Hirani) **½/**** India

Has anyone else seen this? If you have been following the IMDB top 250 you might have noticed it has been flirting on and off with the list. It has a very high IMDB score and quite a few votes as well for such a high score. It was insanely popular when it was released and still is in India. I thought the film was OK, I just do not understand how or why it is highly thought of.

This movie is a college comedy that is 171 minutes long. It just keeps going and going and almost feels like a mini-series that takes place over a ten year period (four years in school). There are more urine and fart jokes per minute than an Adam Sandler film and more fascination with male buttocks than a Jackie Chan film. There are also a few jokes that are incredibly tasteless like using Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a butt of a joke, but since they are few in many it more annoyed me than anything else. Even more annoying is the sharp turns into melodrama (though it will be nothing new to fans of Hong Kong cinema) including at least one suicide, one suicide attempt, and one mention of a previous suicide. I could have also done without the baby delivery via vacuum cleaner as well.

There are two typical Bollywood musical sequences, which I thought were decently done. One comes out of nowhere (the one shown below which at the end leads to a shift in tone to drama), though one fits in more nicely as a reverie type musical. The score itself felt a little chintzy to me. Almost like a television score.

Where the film is at its best is when the homosocial relationships of the three idiots. But the predictability of the life of the relationships, their relationship to the Dean Viru Sahastrabudhhe whom they call the Virus is typical Animal House dean and student dichotomy. Of course one falls for a female (Kareena Kapoor) who just happens to be the daughter of Virus. Though what is weird is that I found myself agreeing more with him than the three idiots (particularly the protagonist Rancho) on his philosophy of getting a good job in India.

I had some issues with the editing as well. There are a couple of points of possible suspense in flashbacks that are ruined because you see too much in the present time.

I know the video below will make you watch the movie soon:

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012: Rupert Sanders) ***/****

My hatred towards Fandango commercials seems to increase every week. Murderous thoughts of setting bags on fire after filming them with poo permeate my membranes. Then when I thought I was safe to view a Pepsi commercial again Sir Elton appears to mock me (though his sunglasses are quite cool) and as inevitable as death and taxes audience members laugh at the appearance of Flavor Flav at the end. Finally the trailers start and various comments and conundrums float through my cranium such as: why is there a Katy Perry movie, why am I not overly looking forward to the new Spiderman film, what is the best route to get to the restroom, why did I drink so much tea, will I actually watch the new RZA film, will the film smack of Orientalism and what is the definition of Orientalism?

Grimm's Fairy Tales have quite a bit of material to choose from and Snow White and the [s]Eight[/s] Seven Dwarves is a familiar tale to many because of the Disney film. Since it is from an oral tradition there are many versions that were told throughout Europe with the Grimm's version from Germany. Now its made its way into a film that has a glowing review from Roger Ebert as well as many random strangers I have accosted into talking about film.

Is it bad that I was rooting for Ravenna (Charlize Theron) over Snow White (Kristen Stewart)? While Theron does overact (compare this to her performance in Prometheus for a contrast in behavior), she certainly seems like she is having fun with her role. I am not sure how much presence Stewart has. She reminds me a little of Liv Tyler or a lot like a little Liv Tyler. Ravenna's relationship with her brother was a lot stronger of a bond in the film than that of Snow White and [s]Thor[/s] the Huntsman.

The cinematography looks fabulous in its gothic and gloomy atmosphere and the antithesis to that in the Fairyland. I wished they spent more time in the Dark Forest and was shown more of the dangers besides the hallucinogenic spores and a pretty ferocious looking troll. Though his behavior makes me wonder why very large CGI animals/beasts/creatures/aliens all seem to growl at their intended victims first instead of just trying to kill them? Hmm, there is food, let me give it a chance to run away by yelling at it. But the magic of CGI is wondrous with its ability to make Nick Frost small and grafted onto the body of a little person. I am referring to the dwarves which were all played by familiar faces from Bob Hopkins (who did not look a hundred percent healthy), Ian McShane who looked like he just came off of On Stranger Tides to Toby Jones.

I liked the set-up of the film much more than what was finally delivered as an ending. Was there anything more hilarious than Snow White suiting up for battle and then helping to lead it like a Joan of Arc figure? Would she still be the fairest of them all if she is dead or scarred? Isn't that taking too much of a chance? This reminded me so much of a Thai film called The Legend of Suriyothai which had the same issue of a fair princess being suited up for battle and slowly dispatching the ineffectual fighters who come against her (how's that for an esoteric reference).

Nothing after the credits. But it looks like there will be a sequel to this film. I will probably see that as well.

Haven't seen 3 IDIOTS but was getting awfully tired of seeing it on the shelves of every retailer with a DVD department when it came out on DVD over here. Nothing about it — and Shawn's review, among many, seems to bear this out — suggests it's worthy of such a wide stateside release other than the opportunity for Fox to lend it's imprimatur to a home-grown hit that might sell well to the diaspora while giving them the mistaken impression that their cinema has somehow "arrived" and/or exploded outside its own culture.

Saw SNOW WHITE a couple of pages back and rated it a 7/10, which could easily tip to a 6, as these things go.

Screenings from the library:

THE GHOST WRITER (2010) 8/10
PRIMER (2004) 8/10
Still wrapping my head around this one days later.
CASINO JACK AND THE UNITED STATES OF MONEY (2010) 8/10
Documentary about infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose bald-faced greedy schemes brought down a couple of Washington bigwigs and forced plenty of others to run for cover behind a wall of denials. This would've benefitted from the participation of Abramoff himself. Apparently he even agreed to participate and recorded interviews, but their use was nixed by the state department. Big surprise that.

Screenings from my stacks (where B-movies tend to thrive):

THE RED HOUSE (1947) 7/10
Pretty dark stuff for its time, with a strong performance by Edward G. Robinson that gets better in retrospect the more it reveals about his character.
NOT OF THIS EARTH (1988) 5/10
Jim Wynorski cast controversial porn starlet Tracy Lords in her first post-hardcore feature (and the only one in which she performed in the nude). Wynorski's typically crude sense of humour and Lords' assets keep this remake of Roger Corman's straight-faced 1957 original entertaining.

Roger Corman's Cult Classic's Lethal Ladies Collection:
TNT JACKSON (1974) 3/10
FIRECRACKER (1981) 5/10
TOO HOT TO HANDLE (1977) 6/10
I saw Cirio Santiago's TNT JACKSON a long time ago in a dreadful public domain presentation, so seeing it for the first time in widescreen and reasonably restored was nice but hardly a revelation as the film is still a bore, with veritable non-actresses Jeannie Bell and Pat Anderson feebly flapping their hands around and flicking their legs in some approximation of a martial art or something, and Stan Shaw's 'fro looking like it exploded out the back of his head. The Philippines are a ridiculous stand-in for Hong Kong; they should've just set it where they filmed it for all the difference it makes. Shaw's slow sampan ride to the city only makes Jim Kelly's in ENTER THE DRAGON look that much cooler. The highlight: Bell's lights on/lights off "kung fu" battle with several henchmen, clad only in her undies, which miraculously change colour at least once. Santiago remade this a few years later as FIRECRACKER, with an enhanced storyline, faster pace, rounded characters, a more convincing leading lady in Jillian Kesner and something in the vicinity of what the experts might call actual martial arts choreography. The results are superior, with the film's "erotic" scenes — including a famous foot-chase-cum-kung-fu-battle that sees Kesner gradually stripped to just her panties as she battles two goons, and a kinky clothes-ripping shag between her and her strange-looking leading man Darby Hinton — rightfully earning most of its reputation. Don Schain's Philippines-set TOO HOT TO HANDLE, starring Cheri Caffaro, is a close cousin to the pair's spy-kink GINGER movies (which I somewhat regret selling off). It trumps both of the other pictures in this set in terms of production value and thankfully allows scenic Manila to actually play itself in between repeated revelations of the star's impressive assets. This was the last directorial effort for Schain; he eventually worked his way into family friendly fare that most often aired on The Disney Channel, culminating in the HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL trilogy (!). It was also the last feature film for Caffaro, who segued into a forgettable producing career before turning her interests, according to her commentary included on the disc, to raising bees and making honey.

QUEST FOR CAMELOT (1998) 4/10
It's extremely difficult to believe the reputed $100 million budget for this. Even by 1998 animation standards, this thing should never have seen the inside of a theatre, let alone thousands of them nationwide. It plays like a pilot movie for a mediocre TV cartoon. The character design is sub-Disney, the backgrounds are shockingly plain and lacking in detail, and the music is the most egregious MOR radio drivel, with every song stopping the film dead for another wannabe FM-lite hit that does nothing to further the plot of deepen the characters.
POOR PRETTY EDDIE (1975) 5/10
COLOMBIANA (2011) 7/10
Second-tier entry from the Luc Besson assembly line.

At the theatre:
PROMETHEUS (2012) 8/10
That's a generous rating, and one given largely for the film's enveloping production design and atmosphere and subtly-deployed 3D effects. The sheer number of dumb actions performed by characters in this — as well as the stock nature of the characters themselves —  actually grew frustrating after a while, and while I "get" the expedited creation/evolution of the final creature that links PROMETHEUS to the ALIEN films, it had me rolling my eyes rather than marveling at how Ridley Scott tied everything together. I can only hope that the Blu-ray will include some kind of Director's Cut that will tone down some of the silliness with added material.

Brian T wrote:Haven't seen 3 IDIOTS but was getting awfully tired of seeing it on the shelves of every retailer with a DVD department when it came out on DVD over here. Nothing about it — and Shawn's review, among many, seems to bear this out — suggests it's worthy of such a wide stateside release other than the opportunity for Fox to lend it's imprimatur to a home-grown hit that might sell well to the diaspora while giving them the mistaken impression that their cinema has somehow "arrived" and/or exploded outside its own culture.

Saw SNOW WHITE a couple of pages back and rated it a 7/10, which could easily tip to a 6, as these things go.

...At the theatre:
PROMETHEUS (2012) 8/10
That's a generous rating, and one given largely for the film's enveloping production design and atmosphere and subtly-deployed 3D effects. The sheer number of dumb actions performed by characters in this — as well as the stock nature of the characters themselves —  actually grew frustrating after a while, and while I "get" the expedited creation/evolution of the final creature that links PROMETHEUS to the ALIEN films, it had me rolling my eyes rather than marveling at how Ridley Scott tied everything together. I can only hope that the Blu-ray will include some kind of Director's Cut that will tone down some of the silliness with added material.

Did you read my spoilers on Prometheus? There are definitely some unanswered questions. The director's cut will then be replaced by the ultimate director's cut a few years from now. This time he will add in narration by Harrison Ford.

I'm wondering why so many of Bollywood films are so dang long? The **½ is a generous rating, though I don't regret watching the film. Reading some of the comments on IMDB (you can guess what country the postitive reviews are from) you would think this was some magnificent opus on the human condition in college (or at least very funny). There is some funny moments in the film, but the amount of fart and urine jokes really became stale (especially at that running time). That high IMDB rating is insane. But I do want you to watch it . Did you watch the musical number I linked to?

Snow White: it looks nice. I felt myself wandering as the film went on. As I mentioned I did like the set-up.

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:Did you read my spoilers on Prometheus?

I did see your spoilers, though I had to go back and re-read them because of the gap between you and I seeing it. I don't recall any text graphic relating to Weyland, which I presumably missed because I was checking something on my iPod after the show, or more likely because I left part way through the credits assuming there wouldn't be any "extras" during or after them. As for the tainted drink, I got the impression that David's behaviour and "curiosity" throughout the film was anything but benevolent, so his messing around like that never struck me as odd. The motives of the engineers, on the other hand, I'm hoping will seem clearer on a repeat viewing; just too much for me to wrap my tired brain around that night. I do think David would have need of Dr. Shaw once their ship gets to wherever it's going, but hopefully the lessons she learned in this adventure would make her pause to consider his motivations at every turn. The Digital Bits tentatively announced the contents of the upcoming Blu-ray today, and there's no mention (yet) of any expanded version of the film, only 15 minutes of deleted and alternate scenes and a boatload of supplements. Not that any of that precludes a double-length "authorized director's special final cut" down the road.

Masterofoneinchpunch wrote:I'm wondering why so many of Bollywood films are so dang long? The **½ is a generous rating, though I don't regret watching the film. Reading some of the comments on IMDB (you can guess what country the postitive reviews are from) you would think this was some magnificent opus on the human condition in college (or at least very funny). There is some funny moments in the film, but the amount of fart and urine jokes really became stale (especially at that running time). That high IMDB rating is insane. But I do want you to watch it . Did you watch the musical number I linked to?

The length of Indian films — almost always in the three-hour range — is a long-standing tradition found almost nowhere else on earth. I've always assumed it stems from their roots as populist escapism of the highest order for a highly destitute population (especially in the old days, but even today to a stronger degree than the country's rising middle-class would have you believe). Stripped of their song-and-dance numbers, most Indian films would clock in around two hours or less, but the fact that you say 3 IDIOTS has only two musical interludes — whereas most productions have four to five times that many — suggests its makers resorted to heavy padding (including copious bodily functions) to meet the perceived run time expectations of the home audience. I remember reading a few years back about some Indian action picture that was in the 90-100 minute range and had NO musical sequences and thinking it might represent a turning point in the country's cinema and a conscious turn toward making films that would cross borders and appeal to more than just the diaspora and the small non-Indian fan base, but alas it was not to be, apparently.


COWBOYS & ALIENS (2011) 6/10
Watching this I was genuinely surprised someone hadn't thought of it earlier (or did they?), but taken on their own, each of its two key components — the sci-fi story and the cowboy western story — aren't particularly fresh in their writing or execution, and so the combination doesn't exactly overwhelm. I thought the design of the aliens was rather good, though.
THE HANGOVER PART II (2011) 5/10
I didn't laugh once at this lazy, borderline remake, only smirked a couple of times. Guess I should've seen it with one of the crowds that made it such a big hit, where the communal experience often convinces us that some things are funny when they're most likely not. This film also illustrates one of my pet peeves about Hollywood comedies: when you haven't got a strong ending, stick in a gratuitous musical number! This one really takes the cake, but it also knocked otherwise decent films like BRIDESMAIDS and 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (and probably countless others I can't think of at the moment) down a peg. If you're making a comedy-musical, fine, then MAKE a comedy-musical and have people breaking into song throughout. But if you can't write a satisfying ending to a conventional comedy (especially a remake) and have to resort to having your cast bring down the curtain in an impromptu production number set to some old pop chestnut, or worse, have to dredge up the pooped-out pop group that performed said chestnut in the first place, or even WORSE, have to bring back Mike Tyson (!) to do it because your whole movie is nothing but winking nods to its predecessor, then you need to go back to the writer's room and stay there until you've created a proper ending.