Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Coming Attractions: Action Jackson (1988)

Film poster for Action Jackson - Copyright 198...Image via WikipediaComing up in episode #51 of Moviesucktastic, Joey and Scott weather the Carl Weathers vehicle Action Jackson, a sad and futile attempt of late 1980s filmmakers to recreate the gritty, hardcore magic of black exploitation cinema classics such as Richard Roundtree's Shaft, and make Carl "Expendable Co-Star" Weathers a leading man.

Don't let the carbon-copy James Bond movie poster fool you: Sgt. Jericho "Action" Jackson is no 007. No sir, this tough as nails Detroit cop doesn't play Blackjack and sip martinis, he plays dominoes and cracks open big cans of whoop-ass, all while spending as much time shirtless as humanly possible. The future city of Detroit might need a Robocop to protect it, but the only thing this modern day Motor City needs to stop the evil plans of Auto Magnate Craig T. Nelson (and do you really need a reason to want to see someone beat the living snot out of Craig T. Nelson?) is an Oh-No Cop, as in Oh No You Didn't! Or, as Action Jackson would say: "How do you like your ribs?"

On a positive note, this is probably one of the few films in which Carl Weathers doesn't die. (Does that qualify as a spoiler?)


Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, August 12, 2011

The Moviesucktastic "Rape Films" List

A Serbian FilmImage via Wikipedia
In response to a recent viewing of the instant cult-status film A Serbian Film, the Movie Guys (Joey and Scott) dedicated the bulk of Moviesucktastic Podcast Episode #38 to rape scenes in popular and underground cinema. What follows below is a list of the films they named and discussed, posted on Moviesucktastic's Lunch.com Community.

The Moviesucktastic "Rape Films" List
Enhanced by Zemanta

Film Critic Dictionary - "Breaking New Ground"

Actress Lena Nyman from the Swedish film 'I Am...Image via WikipediaI'm done with movie reviews that feel the need to state/complain that a film "doesn't break new ground." How many films have you ever seen that actually "break new ground?" For that matter, when was the last time an Oscar-winning film was truly and unequivocally "ground breaking?" What ground is there even left to break? Critics who feel the need to state that no "new ground" has been "broken" are just grasping for a way to either knock a film they didn't like but can't effectively trash, or apologize for a positive review of a film that isn't quite up to art-house film-snob standards. You want to "break new ground?" Try reviewing a film on its own merits without trying to size up its overall importance when measured against the history of cinematic expression. A film isn't any less effective or entertaining just because it doesn't transcend modern cinematic principles or push the envelope on narrative structures. Let's leave this arrogant phrase on the heap with "Popcorn Movie" and "Guilty Pleasure."
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Drive Angry: So good, you can almost forgive it for being in 3D.

By every stretch of the imagination, Drive Angry should be a bad movie. Low budget car-chase action flick with demons battling from hell on southern highways? I mean, it's even got Nicholas "Wicker Man" Cage in it. This should definitely suck. Then why is it so damned enjoyable?

Maybe it's because this movie comes right at you with the full intention of being everything that it is without even flinching, let alone apologizing. You want an action/horror flick with gunfights, explosions, foul language, car chases, and plenty of nudity to fill in the gaps? You've got it in spades. Drive Angry throws enough blood, bullets and f-bombs at you in the first ten minutes that it almost starts to feel surreal. In a market where most action films do their best to tone down the sex and violence enough to squeeze a PG-13 out of the final watered-down product, Drive Angry opens the floodgates and reminds the viewer what exploitation action cinema is all about.

You can't get too hung up on the plot: the film doesn't give you the chance. A brief glimpse of Hell as a maximum-security prison is all we get before a muscle car slams through the gates, and the next thing we know, Nicholas Cage is flipping trucks and blowing off body parts with a shotgun. The premise of a prisoner of Hell escaping o earth to save his granddaughter from being sacrificed by a devil worshiping cult is so basic that the film doesn't bother dwelling on it too long - Instead, it doles out ten-second portions of the minute-long plot summary throughout the film in between car chases and gun fights.

Much like the horror film Slither, Drive Angry is a film made by people who love films like this, and you can feel joy and attitude the filmmakers and performers poured into it with every action sequence and nude scene. The characters and action sequences are so stylized you would swear the film was adapted from a comic book, and I mean that in a good way. The writing isn't what you might call original, which is fine; you can tell the writer's are trying to make a fun movie, and not a groundbreaking cinematic treasure. But even the cheesiest lines in the film (and there are a few) manage to stifle the groans they should illicit, because you're just having too much fun to judge.

The performances are almost top-notch across the board. Billy Burke pulls off the charismatic cult leader Jonah King with enough malevolence to secure his place as the bad guy, yet keeps him fun and entertaining as well. When he says he's going to kill a woman then defile her corpse, you not only believe that he means it, you can tell he's going to enjoy it. Amber Heard would be otherwise unforgettable in her female sidekick role if it weren't for the writing behind her character, Piper. Piper isn't just a boring action film tough-as-nails female character; she is so deliciously white-trash and vulgar that you have no problem with her tagging along with an undead convict because she has nothing else better to do. Even Nicholas Cage gives a passable performance as he runs around looking like Kevin Costner's evil twin. Cage Haters will no doubt lambaste him for what might appear to be a wooden performance, but his refuge from Hell character Milton is purposely driven and dedicated to an almost humorously focused degree, and he acts as monotone and subdued as one might expect someone to be after spending a couple of decades hanging out in Hell.

But William Fichtner steals the movie as The Accountant who tracks down Milton in order to return him to his Hellish Cell Block. Fichtner takes a role that could have easily devolved into a pale imitation of Agent Smith from The Matrix, and turns it into the character you're always happy to see the minute he appears. He masterfully weaves subtlety and nuance into a straight-faced delivery that will have you rewinding his scenes just to see the expression on his face a second time.

Above all else, this movie is everything it sets out to be: a hard-edged, graphic action film that avoids melodrama and instead lets you know that it is having as much fun as you are. And you will have fun.





Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

There Are No Bad Movies, Just Bad Podcast Hosts!

Moviesucktastic Episode #26 goes live today, and with its release, two milestones in Moviesucktastic history are reached! Not only does this episode feature the first-ever Moviesucktastic Interview, it is also the first episode of Moviesuckastic to be released without an 'Explicit' rating! That's right; not only did we bring a fresh new voice and viewpoint into the MST domain, we also managed to prevent Scott from flinging vulgarities a F-bombs around for an entire recording session. The string of expletives he releases in future episodes will no doubt make up the difference. 

The multi-talented artist/actor/singer/writer John Dimes, aka Dr. Sarcofiguy (the first and only African American Horror Host), author of the books Coincidissonance and The White Corpse Hustle: A Guide for the Fledgeling Vampire, joined the Movie Guys via the latest high-tech, state-of-the-art phone conferencing technology (Scott propped his Droid X against the microphone) to discuss his latest book, There Are No Bad Movies! (Only Bad Audiences). In the book, John argues that all films merit approval on some level, and that people who nitpick and complain about the trivial flaws and minutia only distract from the overall entertainment value that the films are trying to provide. Proving to be both bold and brave, the author decided to give his pro-movie manifesto the ultimate test by offering up a review an interview by two people who seem to be dedicated to nothing more than trashing and complaining about films.

That would be us.

Armed with only his wit, charm, charisma, and an extensive knowledge of cinema, Dr. Dimes faced off against his mortal enemies in order to defend his position that film critics like Joey and Scott have only themselves to blame for the hardships they endure sitting through films like Alone in the Dark and Resident Evil: Apocalypse.

Surprisingly enough (or not so surprisingly - we can be nice guys as long as you're not a filthy Avatar Fanatic), Mr. Dimes and the Movie Guys actually ended up agreeing more than disagreeing. Whether obsessed with bad films or convinced that all movies are good, movie lovers are still movie lovers, and the common ground between these two opposing forces of film criticism proved to be as vast as the failure of James Cameron's Sanctum. What was meant to be a half-hour interview turned into an almost two-hour conversation about everything cinematic under the sun. Tom Cruise, Nicolas Cage, Star Wars, Troll 2, Dakota Fanning, nothing was deemed as off limits - until John listed Van Helsing as one of his favorite films. Joey and Scott politely bowed out in order to prevent the show from going into overtime, but promised to dedicate an entire future episode to their thoughts and opinions on that particular Hugh Jackman contribution to The Arts.

Fun was had by all in the end, and the differences in opinions were dulled by a mutual love of films, making for fantastic conversation and a great episode. We enjoyed having Dr. Sarcofiguy on so much, we are planning on holding him to his promise to come back on the show when his upcoming CD, Demo Demons, is finally released. Until that day arrives, be sure to checkout his book, and to listen to our lengthy interview with him in Episode #26, the John Dimes Interview Episode. You can download it from iTunesPodcast AlleyPodcast.com or streamed directly at MovieSucktastic.com. And if you happen to swing by Amazon and pick up a copy of John's book, be sure to let him know that the Movie Guys over at Moviesucktastic sent you.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, July 9, 2010

Bad Movie Review: Killers

The concept of a husband, wife or loved one leading a secret life as an undercover agent is nothing new. Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Grosse Point Blanke, True Lies, The Osterman Weekend, Undercover Blues, The In-Laws and many more have handled this particular subject matter. This isn't to say that this can't be done, but you always want to bring something new to the table. Unfortunately, Killers doesn't manage to do this. The real tragedy, however, is that it so easily could have.

The premise is easy enough to explain; Ashton Kutcher marries Katherine Heigl without revealing his past as a government-contracted assassin. She finds out the hard way, however, as their idyllic life is destroyed when people they considered close friends start trying to kill them. Hilarity ensues. For some reason the film feels the need to waste the entire first act setting up the simple premise of Kutcher and Heigl meeting and falling in love, instead of saving all of that for minor back story later in the film. You could miss the entire first act and still have no problem following the movie, and that is never a good thing. This waste of an opening act is made even more unbearable by Heigl's unappealing comedic overacting, and Kutcher's attempts at a suave bond-type voice that just manage to make him sound dubbed.

Heigl and Kutcher aren't unappealing actors, yet they never really manage to be endearing or enjoyable enough to carry you through the film. Other actors in smaller roles easily still the show whenever they share the screen with the lead actors, including Tom Selleck, Catherine O'Hara, and the Daily Show's Rob Riggle, who seems to get what a dark comedy should look like. If the filmmakers had followed Riggle's lead, they might have ended up with a truly fun dark comedy, instead of the light Forgetting Sarah Marshall with Guns that they decided to make.

Surprisingly, the one thing that Killers has going for it is its action sequences. The fight choreography is not only tight and captivating, but there is a really cool car chase through a suburban landscape that is actually impressive. Little flashes like this really underline the almost schizophrenic nature of the film. The action sequences show a desire to make a hard-hitting dark comedy about government assassins and deadly neighbors, yet the tame PG-13 violence and goofy RomCom antics reveal a desire to be the kind of breezy date film that Kutcher has already done repeatedly in the past.

This is where Killers ultimately fails, in its inability to seize the potential that the setting of the film affords. If the filmmakers had simply scrapped the useless introductory sequence of the first act, and had instead concentrated on building the world that would soon fall apart around the ears of the main characters, the film as a whole would have had much more to offer. Instead of just being an almost goofy comedy, it could have become a dark comedy with subtle commentary on the true nature and lack of intimacy of neighbor relationships in suburban settings, the duplicity of married life, the frailty of friendship, and the tenuous bond between in-laws. Instead, the film let's its own potential rot away on the vine while it goes for cheap RomCom humor and over-the-top mugging at the camera.

Still, Tom Selleck's mustache rules.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 5, 2010

MovieSucktastic #17 - Killers and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

The Twilight Saga: EclipseImage by Nayara - Oliveira via Flickr

This weekend's episode of the MovieSucktastic podcast is up and available for your Fourth of July listening pleasure. After all, why would you blast Creedence Clearwater Revival or Nickelback by the poolside when you could subject your pool party guests to the fevered rantings of a man forced to watch both Killers and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse in one sitting?

Yes, episode #17 of MovieSucktastic features reviews by yours truly after a harrowing night spent huddled in the front seat of my car at Becky's Drive-In while the feature films Killers and Twilight: Eclipse unfolded before me like two great oceans of pain and indifference. After last episode's positive review of The A-Team, it was nice to hunker down in familiar territory and spew the usual spiteful yet informative venom about some movies that violently sucked several hours of my life into the Godless abyss in which all bad movies store the life energies of their victims.Needless to say, I wasn't as enthralled by Ashton Kutcher or Taylor Lautner as the gaggle of twittering teenage girls packed into the SUVs surrounding my car.

This little foray into my total despair at being asked by the ticket booth girl whether I belonged to Team Jacob or Team Edward can be listened to or downloaded from iTunesPodcast AlleyPodcast.com orMovieSucktastic.com.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Plan 9 From Outer Space... in 3D!!!

Film: Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) Director:...Image via Wikipedia
CRISWELL PREDICTS!! I predict education will be given to children through the television screen, no personal teachers, but there will be a warden on duty to see that one hundred percent interest is sustained. Later, education-memory pills will help give you all of the education you can possibly use.
- Jerome King Criswell

Now here's an interesting development in the gradual market saturation of 3D films in both the theater and now on DVD/Blu-Ray. It seems like the studios have been going out of their way to force 3D graphics into every mini-epic and pseudo-blockbuster hitting the screens over the past year. Well, they've finally gone ahead and started cranking out crappy movies in 3D as well. No, I don't mean Clash of the Titans. We're talking really crappy. No, I'm still not talking about Clash of the Titans.

It turns out that the minds behind the 3D technology at PassmoreLab , the “World’s Largest 3D Content Provider,” have decided to showcase proprietary conversion technology by releasing a 3D version of one of the worst films ever produced, Ed Wood's seminal cult classic Plan 9 From Outer Space. Using the print restored and colorized by Legend Films in 2006, they will be going through the film frame-by-frame and converting Wood's error-riddled smörgÃ¥sbord of shoddy filmmaking into glorious high-resolution 3D entertainment.

This seems to be a follow-up to their 3D conversion of the original Night of the Living Dead, which leads me to believe that they are practicing their handiwork on public domain films in order to showcase the capabilities of their process with as little overhead has possible. No complaints here, as long as they keep picking high-profile films that are entertaining to watch with or without the funny glasses. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Tor Johnson's arms stretching out past the screen in my direction. Beats giant Smurfs with arrows any day of the week.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Podcast #16 - The A-Team, Drive-Ins, and Dog Owners

Yes, the MovieSucktastic podcast is back on schedule, after an extended hiatus so Scott could (unsuccessfully) attempt to track down co-host Joey, who was abducted last month by militant Avatar fanatic in retaliation for his past anti-Avatar reviews.

But the hunt is over now, and Scott is back in action and well into the MovieScottastic swing of things with his full-on review of The A-Team, which he screened at Becky's Drive-In. This, of course, also leads to a brief rant about moviegoers and drive-in moviegoers, and their never ending quest to ruin the movie-going experience for the general public. Here's a quick preview: what do you do when a crying baby isn't loud enough to disrupt the film? Bring the dogs along as well, of course.

So tune in and check out the latest on the A-Team, as well as Scott's opinion on the film's lack of a Mr. T cameo. I pity the fool who doesn't listen to the latest episode, either at iTunes, Podcast Alley, Podcast.com or MovieSucktastic.com. Current plans for the next episode include reviews of Killers, The Human Centipede, and Deadtime Stories..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Movie Review: The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

Promotional poster for The Human Centipede (Fi...Image via Wikipedia
When The Human Centipede by Tom Six was first recommended to me, I was sure that it was a joke. "No, really. What's it about?" It is the kind of plot that is almost too ridiculous to comprehend. Can you really make an entire film around... that?

Yes, you can. Of course, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you SHOULD. But they did anyway, and the result is one of the most grotesquely hilarious films I have seen in years.

There is no denying that this is a bad movie. This is the kind of movie that serves as the poster child for trash cinema. The next time some politician or infotainment host decides to raise the battle cry against the disgusting horror films corrupting America's youth, they will no doubt be waving around the DVD case of The Human Centipede as they scream for strict censorship laws. I don't even think I'll blame them when they do: this is not the kind of film you watch if you aren't into these kinds of films. This isn't even the kind of film that you admit to being into. I hate to throw the phrase "guilty pleasure" around with reckless abandon, but in the case of The Human Centipede, I think it is more than justified. This film is the dirty little secret you only admit watching and enjoying to those sick, twisted individuals that share your bizarre taste in cinema.

The plot is incomprehensible as it is simple. Doctor Heiter is a medical professional with a burning passion for experimental surgery, a very unpleasant bedside manner, and a skull way to large for the rest of his head. Famous for successfully separating conjoined and Siamese twins, the good doctor is now obsessed with joining things together. Heartbroken from the death of his freshly-joined three dobermans (his "Beloved Three-Dog), Heiter desides to step things up a notch and join three humans. This becomes possible when two teenage twits on a European vacation get a flat tire and stumble upon the anal-retentive (in more ways than one) mad doctor. They are the perfect victims: it is hard to feel much sympathy when the girls stumble upon a creepy German doctor with a bulging cranium and pictures of deformed fetuses on the walls, then gladly accet when he tells them to sit and offers them drinks. Two glasses of Rohypnol water and one dart-gunned Japanese drifter later, and all of the ingredients for a Human Centipede are ready and waiting. Let the good times roll.

How does he join them? I thought you 'd never ask. His brainstorm involves crippling the knees so the three can't stand up, and then surgically connecting all three people ass-to-mouth, creating a conjoined monstrosity with one continuous gastronomic passageway. That's probably the nicest way to put it. If you are having a hard time grasping the concept, fear not; the good doctor explains it all in great detail to his helpless victims, including visual aids shown on an overhead projector. Personally, I thought he would have done a better job with a PowerPoint presentation.

If this sounds like a spoiler, it really isn't. The revelation of this creation doesn't mark a climactic ending, but merely kicks off the second act. Your reaction will probably be like mine; a quick glance at a watch, followed by the dim realization that there is still an hour of this to go. This is where the film pays off, as we get to watch Heiter actually interacting with his new creation with the mixed emotions of affection and frustration you would expect from a new pet owner with irrational expectations and a monstrously skin-stretching skull. I'm not kidding, his head is huge. It actually distracts from the Human Centipede. Dieter Laser, the man behind the freakish head, makes the movie. His emotional outbursts, creepy delivery and crazed expressions  never fail to delight, and there isn't a moment that you don't believe in the character. When Dr. Heiter actually weeped at the unveiling of his creation, I couldn't help get a little teary-eyed myself. My favorite part is when he takes the Human Centipede out on the lawn for training. I'm sure it will be yours as well.

The genius behind The Human Centipede is that it is not overly graphic. You'll probably see more blood and gore on an episode of Grey's Anatomy, speaking of abominations of nature. What sets this film apart is the human cruelty and anguish of the mad doctor's victims, who are quite conscious and alert throughout the entire film, even if only one of them is able to speak after the first act. The film isn't shocking as much as it is disturbing, and it gets even more disturbing when you find yourself laughing at it. Yes, this is the kind of film that actually makes you feel dirty for watching. That's what horror films used to feel like. I kinda enjoy that.

This is not the kind of film that many will feel comfortable recommending to friends or family members, but just remember, it is all in the interest of science! Plus, The Human Centipede is also a great educational experience for the young ones; before your family viewing, quiz your children as to which part of the Human Centipede they would prefer being. After the film, compare their choices with the inherent realities displayed throughout the story. This is not only a great example of critical thought, but also teaches the lesson of being careful what you wish for.

Speaking of Careful Wishes, I should probably point out that a sequel, The Human Centipede (The Full Sequence) is due out next year.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, April 5, 2010

Bad Movie Review: My Bloody Valentine 3D

I've gotten a bit soft on remakes over the years, especially when it comes to horror film remakes. While there are many films that one can be argue should never be remade (Casablanca and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory come to mind), there are a lot of films out there that had good premises or even screenplays, but suffered from minuscule budgets or shoddy productions values. Many of the films we consider "classic" usually obtain that exalted status based on our emotional attachment to the movie rather than the quality of the film.

With that in mind, and despite ignoring any comparison with the original film, My Bloody Valentine in 3D is truly an awful picture. One of the first horror films to jump on the now obnoxiously popular 3D bandwagon, MBV3D is exactly the kind of film that gives horror films a bad name. Ignoring the chance to take an older horror film and effectively update it for a newer audience, the people behind this remake simply threw together as much three-dimensional violence they could get away with under an R-rating and cobbled a script together that barely justifies the illusion of a plot to take us from one murder scene to the next. Horror films don't have to be brilliant works of storytelling in order to be enjoyed, but the occasional semblance of logic wouldn't hurt, either.


Case in point: The initial idea of a bunch of miners being trapped in a tunnel collapse, and then one of them killing all of the others to conserve all of the oxygen for himself, is not wholly far fetched or fantastic. Taking it one step further and having the homicidal survivor mentally snap and run around in full miner's gear killing everyone he comes across with a pick axe is also quite credible. The filmmakers could have even taken the psychosis of the killer to the next level, insinuating that his fear of death has driven him to believe that every living soul he comes across is yet another threat to his life as long as they are still breathing his precious oxygen.

But, just because this traumatic event occurred on Valentin's Day, our demented killer is instead somehow motivated to cut the hearts out of his victims, place them in heart-shaped candy boxes, and leave behind notes that read "Be Mine 4 Ever?" There isn't even a back story involving a bitter love affair or an unfaithful wife leaving him the day of the accident to make this drastic connection between the two completely separate events even somewhat plausible. Just to add frustration to the confusion, why go through the trouble of having him leave notes behind with the clever word play involving Mine, bother to show him using the number 4 instead of spelling it out, but then having the tragic event happen in Mine Shaft 5, and not Mine Shaft 4? I'm willing to put up with flying pick axes that defy the laws of physics, but at least give me a plot-line that doesn't stretch the boundaries of common sense.

It is little things like this that add insult to the injuries left behind by bad movies such as this. The acting is more than acceptable considering the kind of film it is, the editing and camera work are commendable, and even the mind-bendingly lengthy nude scene during the film's opening act is just gratuitous enough to serve its purpose. But subjecting your audience to twisted and uninspiring plot logic that is as predictable as it is incomprehensible does little more than give them a headache, and that is inexcusable no matter what genre your film belongs to.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Raymond Chandler on the Oscars

Seven by ChandlerImage by marctonysmith via Flickr
As blunt and eloquent as ever, Raymond Chandler, who was a harsh and outspoken critic of Hollywood, weighed in on the Academy Awards after attending the awards ceremony for the first and last time in 1941:

If you can get past those awful idiot faces on the bleachers outside the theater without a sense of the collapse of human intelligence, and if you can go out into the night and see half the police force of Los Angeles gathered to protect the golden ones from the mob in the free seats, but not from the awful moaning sound they give out, like destiny whistling through a hollow shell; if you can do these things and still feel the next morning that the picture business is worth the attention of one single, intelligent, artistic mind, then in the picture business you certainly belong because this sort of vulgarity, the very vulgarity from which the Oscars are made, is the inevitable price that Hollywood exacts from each of its serfs.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, March 22, 2010

Bad Movie Review: Surrogates

Surrogates (film)Image via Wikipedia
Surrogates falls into that category of films that end up being much better than anticipated. Films that do not screen themselves for critics ahead of the release date are usually predestined clunkers, as not wanting a write-up in the Friday papers is a red flag that the distributors are almost certain that the weekend box-office is the only shot they have of recouping costs before word of mouth kills the film. Expecting the worst, Surrogates manages to surprise with a decent story and great performances, even if this welcome deviation from the norm only manages to set the viewer up for a different fall.

The opening, of Surrogates, featuring a series of news clips marking the advancement of technology over the years, is an immediate red flag. Films that feel the need to dump a mini history lesson on the audience in the very beginning are usually the product of screenwriters or filmmakers that are either too lazy to explain the film’s setting through natural exposition, or severely underestimate the intelligence of the audience. This is the reason, for example, that Iron Man starts with a brief comedy/action scene transplanted from the middle of the film: to camouflage the Tony Stark Bio Montage as a transitional scene, rather than a quick info-dump.

However, in the case of Surrogates, this crash-course to avoid answering question throughout the film actually works to the film’s advantage. In the world of Surrogates, neurologically linked prosthetics have advanced to the point that remotely controlled full robotic automatons are commonplace. Originally intended to allow the paralyzed and handicapped to function normally in the world, Surrogates are instead used by a vast majority of the population, who sit at home in docking stations while indestructible versions of themselves take their places in the real world.

What is most surprising about the film is that it actually touches on the many themes for which type of scenario has the potential, more so than you would expect. Surrogates never fully resemble their users , but instead take on the role of either idealized self-images (younger, more attractive) or starkly contrasting fantasy personae (men masquerading as women, white and nerdy scientists as seven foot tall black men). Personal identity, public role-playing, self-hating attitudes and vanity run amok are just a few of the sociological viewpoints under examination here.

Then there is Bruce Willis’ character, a federal agent with a growing uneasiness towards Surrogate usage, fueled by his slowly crumbling marriage. Ever since a car accident that killed their only son, the still-mourning couple now interacts almost exclusively through their surrogates, demonstrating not only the emotional impact that such a tragedy can have on a couple, but the alienation that comes with human interaction through technology. This is complicated even more by Willis’ wife, played by Rosamund Pike, whose accident-scarred face is tragic reminder of her son’s death, one that she can only escape by living a new life in an artificial body. Even an advertisement for new surrogates for children raises even more issues: when it comes to the safety of your child, where do you draw the line between protection and isolation.

With this much depth going for it, you would think that the film would weigh anchor and build a story around these themes. Unfortunately, this is where the film ultimately fails, and where it all falls short: the apparent need by the studio for the film to fall into traditional action/sci-fi conventions. Ever since Terminator 2, any film involving robots invariably involves chases with super-strong/agile robots leaping around and shrugging off insane amounts of damage. Surrogates could have easily sustained several action sequences without resorting to robots throwing parking meters like javelins and wirework leaping effects straight out of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

This need to transform the future to such an extreme level leads to several illogical and convoluted premises. First, there is the extreme implication that ninety-nine percent of the world now uses surrogates; home computers and iPods aren’t even that popular, and it is seriously debatable if they would be even if they were free, which Surrogates definitely aren’t. Then, just to draw a sharper contrast, the film reasons that in such a world, those who refuse to use surrogates would end up living in homeless shanty-towns designated as Technology-Free Zones where shooting at federal agents and publicly burning dead bodies are acceptable under their own independent laws. The film then examines the religious implications behind surrogates long enough to make the anti-surrogate movement seem like a cult (complete with wild-haired Ving Rhames spiritual leader), yet not long enough to explain why the Vatican hasn’t led a holy crusade against soulless automatons that apparently enable risk and guilt-free sex for their home-bound users.

Surrogates is indeed far better than expected, but that doesn’t make up for falling short of its potential. Instead of taking the premise into new directions that few features seem willing to confront, the film instead forces itself into the predetermined molds cast from studio sci-fi films of the past. Shooting for a strange hybrid of They Live, The Matrix and I, Robot invariably ensures a swing and a miss, especially with an ending reminiscent of Escape from LA pasted on like a happy little bow. This is not to say that it isn’t worth watching. Just be prepared to be equally surprised and disappointed.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Deliciously Bad Movies: Hausu (1977)





Warning: watching this film clip from the seventies Japanese horror film "Hausu" might cause extreme confusion or brief psychotic episodes.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, February 26, 2010

Oscar Watch Review: The Blind Side

THE BLIND SIDEImage by CityTalk via Flickr
Film: The Blind Side
Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress

The Blind Side is one of those films that people just can't help but rave about. It's the touching true-life story of Michael Oher's rise from the projects to the NFL thanks to the loving efforts of his adopted wealthy white Christian family, and everyone you talk to either loved it, really liked it, or is dying to see it.

There's no real reason why this shouldn't be the case. The film is expertly written, well-crafted, flows effortlessly, and pulls all of the predetermined heart strings in the proper order. And while no movie based on actual events is ever one hundred percent accurate, there don't appear to be any overly judicious edits or white-washing of the story like A Beautiful Mind; elements and details have been tweaked for dramatic (or comic) effect, but no one is coming out to challenge the story or its merits. This is just your average true-life Horatio Alger Rags-to-Riches story, delivering the heart-warming message that anyone is capable of achieving their dreams.

So why does it leave a bad taste in my mouth?

There's nothing bogus or unbelievable about the story; the Tuohy family did indeed take Oher in as one of their own (presumably because people with hard to read last names need to stick together), looking beyond the barriers of race. The fact alone that this actually happened should make me feel all warm and fuzzy about how far we've come in this country as far as race relations go. But after awhile, it feels like the whole racial element of the story has been sort of glossed over or, excuse the pun, white-washed. (On second thought, don't excuse that pun. I don't need your sympathy).

I know, I know; the Tuohy's overlooked race, why can't I? But no matter how much I try, it still nags at me. While the film does take a couple of brief trips to the projects where Michael came from to provide a little contrast, the rest of time is spent following a specific pattern. Racial prejudices or tensions are brought up briefly in solitary conditions, laughed off or comedic effect, then quickly stowed away again so we can get back to main task of watching this big lovable oaf blunder around winning our hearts while Sandra Bullock barges into every scene doing her best Erin Brockavich impression. The latter isn't surprising considering Julia Roberts was originally approached for the roll, but it also isn't what I would call a breathtaking Oscar-worthy performance.

This approach towards racial differences isn't just casual, it feels almost dismissive. Yes, it is brought up, but always in single moments with solitary characters seeming almost out of place in their reactions. Take the scene at Michael first football game. Are we really supposed to accept that not only is there just one racist spectator at a southern private school sporting event, but that the best insult he can come up with is "Black Bear"? I'm not suggesting that outraged bigots should have rushed the field for an impromptu lynching (is there any other kind?), but one extreme seems just as unlikely as the other. And don't forget the Tuohy's private conversation at the beginning of the scene, "Have you ever seen so many rednecks in one place?" This decidedly self-conscious attempt to separate this charitable and colorblind family from the rest of society is the film's way of almost admitting how unrealistic this race-free zone eventually becomes.

Maybe it would have been easier to take if the filmmakers had just pretended there was no such thing as racism. Then it would have been easy to become immersed in the multitude of heart-warming scenes involving this loving family taking this young disadvantaged child under the wings and showing him how to fly. But it just can't help but set up little laugh-at-racism tension breakers every ten or fifteen minutes, whether its a drunk uncle calling to ask if they know there's a "colored boy" on their Christmas cards, or Leigh Tuohy shaming her  "unenlightened" sister for asking if she's nervous about Michael being accessible to her teenage daughter. If racial equality is such a non-issue, why keep bringing it up for comic relief?

But does the film really need to delve into such murky waters when all it is trying to do is entertain and inspire? Well, no. But then again, race is why this became such a popular story in the first place. Plenty of black football players have escaped the ghetto, and there are plenty of upper-class white families with sons in the NFL. The novelty of a rich white family adopting a black teenager and lending him the family structure he needed to excel far enough in his studies to even be eligible for a football scholarship, is what makes it a story worth making a major motion picture about. You can't tell a story that is a testament to overcoming prejudice while being almost completely dismissive about the reasons why it is a testament and not the norm. It would be like making a film about teenage pregnancy that avoids the subject of sex; well-intentioned, but missing the point.

Of course, raising questions like these threatens to land you smack in the middle of a classic Catch-22 scenario. One group of people complains that the film is yet another racist example of rich white people thinking that they are the only ones who can solve the problems of lower-income minorities. Another group responds by claiming these reverse-racist accusations are what white people get for actually doing something right for a change. Then another group describes the film as an elitist-liberal-democrat wet-dream, which prompts another group to identify it as a one-in-a-million story used as a shield to hide the white guilt of rich pseudo-conservatives. Everyone's either being too sensitive or not sensitive enough. If you think I'm exaggerating all of this, just do some Google searches and see what pops up.

So maybe that's why the simplicity of The Blind Side's story leaves me feeling a little uneasy. Because if the reactions from all of these groups (none of whom I think I want to personally identify with) are any indication, the racial implications and ramifications aren't as simple and easy to overlook as the film might want you to think, no matter how true-to-life its true-life-fairy-tale origins may be. And while simplistic might be the perfect recipe for a well-received feel-good hit of the year, it isn't exactly what I would call a top priority for a Best Picture nomination.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]