The Iceman

In the first season of Dexter, back when the show was good, the villain, who allegedly transported his victims in a refrigerated van, became known as the Ice Truck Killer. He would drain their blood and cut them up into pieces and then put them out on display for the police to find. Most people probably do not realize that the show -- at least in its early years -- including this unforgettable foe, are based on true events. The origin story of the Ice Truck Killer is, in fact, a serial killer known as The Iceman.

Okay, I'm just fucking with you. The show Dexter and the movie The Iceman are not, to my knowledge, in any way related. And the former is certainly not based on true events. I just can't resist an opportunity to point out how Dexter was once a great show and then stopped being one. But I guess we're here to talk about movies. So here's The Iceman...

Dylan: I watch Boardwalk Empire. And I think I’m not alone in saying that Michael Shannon’s character has quite a lot of crazy brewing just below the surface. He doesn’t get a lot of screen time, but whenever he shows up, my fingers are crossed that he'll snap and kill everyone. The fact that he is usually held back, on a show filled with lunatics mass murdering each other only fuels the anticipation. But that's a discussion for another time. Well, as far as I can tell, this movie, The Iceman, is explosive release of that same character's insanity (granted, about forty/fifty years in the future). Shannon has an intensity in all of his projects, but this is the first time he goes full-on sociopath from beginning to end.

Mark: Which I found kinda refreshing.  This movie starts with him playing the gentleman as he courts his future wife.  It plays it slow, letting us see, or at least what I thought at the time, The Iceman before he snaps or whatever.  And then two scenes later the blood starts flowing.  There is no build-up, no origin of this killer.  He just was.  So we are dropped into his life and watch as he sinks deeper and deeper into his life of a sociopathic hitman.  But while I say this is good, it also leaves us groundless.  Time flies in this film; years go by, but only occasionally is the date given as a reference point.  I understand this was a long period of his life, but it felt disjointed.  Things flew by, and while moments were entertaining, I got lost a bit in the shuffle of it.

Dylan: Yea totally. I enjoyed Shannon’s crazy face (which is his normal visage), as I always do. But the rest of the movie was severely lacking. Only one scene with Shannon’s character, Richard, and his brother really attempts to divulge some of the history and childhood events that spawned his homicidal tendencies. And it comes halfway through the movie. Aside from that, we gather everything we can, basically, from the way he literally looks at the general public vs. the way he looks at his wife and kids. I also thought that the mafiosos and their storyline was only partially developed. There was Roy and Leo, and some problem between them. But it was barely fleshed out enough to understand how it played into Richard’s life. Especially since, as you mentioned, two decades went by, and it was unclear who was being killed and who Richard was killing people for. Also, since we didn’t mention this: the movie is about a notorious mob (freelance) hitman.

Mark: While watching this, all I could feel is that this story should have been told as a mini-series, so that the time jumps would feel less jolting, and the characters would benefit from more growth and depth.  Everyone, really even Richard, feels like just a caricature.  Richard is brooding and brimming with rage, and that’s it.  Roy, played by a Ray Liotta who seems like he’s sleepwalking through this, is just your run-of-the-mill mafia boss.  I love me some Michael Shannon, but somewhere along the line of the movie’s production, someone told him that his stoic face is really good, and he stuck with.  The only two characters I found myself being really interested in were Josh Rosenthal and Mr. Freezy; Josh because he is played by a David Schwimmer hoping you won’t recognize him.  And Mr. Freezy because Chris Evans hams it up and knocks it out of the park.

Dylan: The reason I brought up Boardwalk is because there is a whole TV series there to flesh out the normal side of Shannon’s character and the events that send him over the edge. And yea, all we get here is a caricature. And that goes for Liotta, too. When did they decide he was the go-to mafia boss character? Goodfellas was great, but even in that, he was just an Irish coke fiend. I agree that Chris Evans was good. It’s great to see him in different roles. He’s like a male Scarlet Johannson (the rockin’ bod); you know he’s in stuff other than The Avengers, but you haven’t really seen much of it. But in this film, he is another character that suffers from two-dimensionality. It would have been more interesting to see how Mr. Freezy’s flavor of craziness differed from Richard’s, and how the two of them work together and try to understand each other. But instead he is introduced, has a few lines here and there, and then leaves.

Mark: But at least for Mr. Freezy, I felt some life being pumped into the film.  They may have been only a few lines, but they had energy.  And you can also see that Chris Evans was still rocking the Captain America physique.  It actually made his character more ridiculous, but in a good way.  But he highlights the biggest flaw in the movie: it’s very shallow.  The story is focused solely on telling you the history of Richard Kuklinski, but nothing more.  Like, it hits on major moments in his life, jumping from one to the next, never letting you sit and watch him develop.  All the changes happen in the time jumps, we just get to see the next stage in the evolution of the Iceman.  Not to say that the life of the Iceman wasn’t interesting, but I wanted something more personal, cause with things just flying by, pivitol moments that change the course of his life just feel like bulletpoints.

Dylan: True. It was just sort of handed to us that his killings were picking up publicity and that there was a killer known as the Iceman when we saw a newspaper headline. There was no indication of the severity of organized crime in that area and at that time. Maybe we were just supposed to know. I don’t know. The movie was entertaining. But it was missing a lot of substance.

And I meant to comment on what you said about David Schwimmer’s role. How can we picture that mope as anything other than the whiney, neurotic Ross from Friends? Here he is a drug dealer/mob enforcer? Yea right. That was kind of lame. And I was really hoping Richard would murder him. Spoiler alert: he doesn’t.

Mark: Which is why I found him so unintentionally hilarious.  And I realize we’re talking heavy on the acting and characters, but really, that’s all there is to this.  As for things like direction or score, I found them to be fine.  Well, actually, a bunch of scenes seemed to have a weird filter that made everything one uniformed color.  I swear there was a scene where Richard is with his family and everything is a shade of orange.  It was so bizarre.  And the music sounded like the same musical cue for the Joker in The Dark Knight.  It worked, but felt like it was aping another, obviously better film.

Dylan:  Overall, I’d say it was very...average, in most respects. Nothing special in any particular department. It’s literally Michael Shannon releasing some of the rage he’s been building up in his other TV/film roles. No character has any sort of arc or growth throughout the hour and a half. So, while it was watchable and somewhat enjoyable, I’m not sure I would recommend it. Really nothing remarkable here.

Mark: We both only really watched this because we have a fascination bordering on obsession with Michael Shannon.  But yeah, unless you really want to know some key points in the life of The Iceman -- a supposedly notorious hit man I had never even heard of up to this point -- I can’t really recommend this for any other reason.  Nothing stands out that sets it above any other film.  Though, does any other film have a scene of Michael Shannon attempting to dance with his arms in the air like he just don’t care?  Not that I can think of.

Dylan: Thank you for reminding me of that! Greatest scene ever! Yes, I forgot about the Michael Shannon at the club scene. I have to say, that alone makes the film at least a little bit watchable. Anyways, yea, I guess I expected some fascinating character study mixed with historical drama. But Shannon already flaunted his slightly off acting chops in Take Shelter. It’s not like he owes me anything.

Mark:  Yeah, I guess that’s one thing this movie did for me: make me want to rewatch Take Shelter, a much better movie.  Which incidentally made me look up the director of Take Shelter and I found out he’s making another movie with Michael Shannon.  So we have something to look forward to.

Dylan: Yea, and I also have to watch Mud, if I can ever get my hands on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It slipped my mind at the time, but I would also like to add that James Franco's role in this film is completely overstated. I see on the film poster he has the third credit, when in fact he spent possibly the least amount of time in the film of any character. There may have even been a corpse in a freezer that got more screen time then Franco. So if you're considering seeing this movie because it has his name at the time, don't bother. 

And that's all we got. 

Night Watch

Okay then. After a brief separation due to irreconcilable differences, my partner and I have, well, reconciled our differences and have thus returned the only way we know how: by talking about a movie.

In an attempted return to form, we chose a underrated foreign movie from Netflix. The film is called Night Watch. Apparently it was pretty popular in its home country, Russia, but is relatively unknown in these parts. That's where we come in. Naturally it caught our collective attention.

Dylan: Wow. It has been a while since I’ve had to preface my thoughts with my own name. At long last, we managed to synchronize a movie viewing. It’s only been, what, four months or so? Anyways, we’re getting back in the game with certainly an interesting choice. Someone back in college told me to see this movie and, out of greater than normal dislike for that person, I promptly disregarded the idea. But a late, lonely night and a Netflix account can really work wonders on changing a guy's mind. So I gave it a shot and here we are.

Where do I begin? First off, it is a foreign film. And, like our other foreign-language selections -- The Host, The Raid, Troll Hunter among them -- it’s got fantasy, action, and just an excellent level of weirdness that I really enjoyed, and that I can’t really compare to anything else I’ve seen. The only comparison it brings to mind is the novel American Gods by Neil Gaiman. Or maybe...Constantine? I don’t know. The idea is that, since the dawn of time or whatever, good and evil (angels and demons, essentially) have been at war. Special beings, known as Others, are basically humans with supernatural abilities; with the discovery of their powers they have to choose whether they will fight for the Light or the Darkness. Throw in a curse that could bring around the end of the world, and all of this is the background for a pretty fast-paced and bizarre story about shape-shifters, vampires, and some other crazy shit that, if I describe anymore, will come off as lame and overdone, when it is actually quite original.

Mark: You make a good comparison with Constantine, cause it is basically about The Others trying to maintain the balance between them and keeping the Truce from being broken. But instead of having a third party Keanu Reeves-type to mediate, both good and evil work to keep each other in line. I like how there's no generalized duality to represent the sides; no Harry Potter/Voldemort or Frodo Baggins/Sauron representing the ideal good and evil. In fact, the protagonist in this case is pretty jaded; he tried to use dark magic to abort his unborn son in the first scene after all. 

I also like that, when it comes down to if a new Other is going to be good or evil, it’s their decision. It’s something that, really, you don’t see in movies.  And so, all this sets the scene for a moment during a routine job to stop a vampire in which our lead Anton sees a future that could unravel the world.  And I love that while it’s a dark story with blood and violence, somehow it keeps it all from getting bogged down and depressing.  Crazy camera angles, cool action, and interesting fantasy elements keep it moving at a quick pace, for the most part.

Dylan: I think one of its greatest attributes is that it keeps you on your toes, tonally. You’re right about the gore/violence; there were some unexpectedly bloody scenes, but they weren’t used for shock and awe. And the camera angles -- the cinematography in general -- was very cool. It was a bit jumpy at times, but was never distracting. And the almost palpable darkness reminded me of the sets of The Crow, but much less cartoonish and more realistic (most of it was, in fact, Moscow, I assume). Even the subtitles were designed to add some effect, as if the movie was filmed in Russian, but with the foresight that it would be dubbed/subtitled in English. The way certain words faded into blood drops and what not. The greatest part is that I didn’t even notice it at first because it flowed so well with the film.

Mark: Yea, I first noticed a character moved in front of the subtitles and when she moved back, they had changed.  It’s an interesting and creative use of what's on the screen; they’re used to emphasize different emotions and it works well.  And I would say The Crow is a good comparison as well, since things are so stylized, from the buildings to the fighting to even how they transition from scene to scene.  Nothing becomes stagnant.  Though, sometimes I was caught up in the action or the way something was shot on screen, and completely missed the subtitles, which is funny since I just said they’re integrated with the action of the scene.  But hey, I get distracted by stuff easily.

Dylan: I also want to speak to the interesting mythology of the movie. It’s hard to explain the uniqueness of it, in my opinion, especially because it’s very traditional. Yes, it’s Light versus Darkness. But the human element was so neatly intertwined, and, like you said, there is no exotic predestined conclusion, no good for goodness' sake hero whose fate it is to defeat the evil for evil's sake villain. You pick your own destiny and then you fight on that side. But the lines are blurred. Anton, who fights for the Light, is neighbors with Kostya, a vampire. They get along, knowing full well that someday they may be called to fight each other. I don’t know how to put it into words, but the history of it was impressively believable. 

Mark:  The more I think about it, the more I see this connecting to Underworld.  Two factions, forever in a state of tension, but while they are in the open, they don’t make their presence known. Instead of warring, they’re just trying to keep the peace.  And then, without wishing to spoil anything, the ending pulls a fast one after setting you up for something completely different.  Yeah, it’s to set up the sequel, but knowing that, it works well to bring the two main plots together in the end  And in the end, I was really pleased with how it turned out.

Dylan: And you know, I actually wanted to talk about the ending. I enjoyed this moving very much but the ending was sort of anticlimactic and raised a number of questions. As it turns out, this movie -- in the very Western style of moviemaking -- was made with the intention of being the first of a trilogy (I probably should have picked that up; it's written right on the cover). So not only is the end somewhat open-ended, there isn’t much resolution for any character. And we’re definitely left wondering what to expect. On the one hand, the apocalypse is avoided, but at what cost? As far as I know, the sequel exists and is also available on Netflix. But the third hasn't been filmed yet. So we could watch the second, but chances are we’d still end up without a solid conclusion.

Mark: Yeah that’s always the problem when creating movies intended to be trilogies or sequels, you never know if you’re gonna be able to make the rest.  Unless you’re Disney of course.  But with this film, being that it’s less known, the regular moviegoer probably wouldn’t go in knowing there’s a sequel, so the openness of the ending makes it feel like we’ve lost out on closure.  And they leave it hanging really at a pivotal moment for Anton, though that’s what cliffhangers tend to do.  But I liked how it came together in the ending, and I won’t lie, it makes me interested to see where it goes in the second.  And it makes me want to look up if there even is a third coming, cause that would really suck if we watch the next and never get the conclusion.

Dylan:  I just looked up the director (and writer and producer) Timur Bekmambetov, and I think I see what the problem is. His more recent credits include Wanted and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, so I suspect he, like other great directors, has been sucked into the vortex of American filmmaking. And so I fear a threequel, as it were, may be doomed to the back of his mind for awhile. Especially since he’s currently working on Wanted 2.

Mark: Yeah, I thought his name looked familiar.  So if anything, it will be a long while until the third film comes out, if it does at all.  Which is a shame, because I also read that these films did very well in Russia, so he’s leaving what seems to be a hit at home for mediocre films in the states. Such is Hollywood.

Dylan: I’m sure the paycheck is bigger, and that speaks for itself. Anyways, that’s enough cynicism for me. Anything else to say?

Mark: Well I found out that Konstantin Khabenskiy, who plays Anton, was actually in Wanted.  He played the Exterminator, who was the guy with the exploding rats.  Fact.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Needless so say, we recommend Night Watch. I actually regret waiting so long to give it a shot. Maybe I'll reconsider my friendship with the person who originally recommended it. Maybe everything I thought about that kid was just a misunderstanding. Maybe...nah, fuck it. He's an asshole.

I can't say if we'll be able to get back on track with these dual reviews, given our difficult schedules. Hopefully this entry is so profoundly enlightening that it holds everyone over until the next time.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

What can I say? You may or may not have read my review on the first of the Hobbit trilogy -- An Unexpected Journey -- so I'll sum it up by saying that I went into it expecting a Lord of the Rings movie and was completely let down.

How does The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug compare to the first? Well damn, you'll just have to keep reading to find out.

The more thought I put into this, the less I find a review is even worth it. If I see a really good movie, I am very happy to talk about it with anyone who'll listen. And then it seems the more I talk about it, the more I love it. Forcing myself to discuss a movie I am unhappy with has an equal and opposite effect. I really want to enjoy these Hobbit movies, so reinforcing my disappointment by going over the flaws again and again isn't helping anyone.

To some extent, I learned my lesson after An Unexpected Journey. These movies are not The Lord of the Rings. They really want to be. And maybe if LOTR didn't exist, these would be really powerful, exciting, epic films. But they're all just a shallow half-hearted reminder that something better has already been made and, if your ass is in the theater, than that better something is likely in your DVD collection already.

This time around, I went into the theater with lower expectations. And that was a good move. Basically, everything wrong with the first movie had rippled through to the second. Yes, I read the book. But no, I am not such a hardcore Tolkien fan that I'll rant about every minute deviation from source. That being said, it was once again painfully obvious when the narrative when into uncharted territory. Characters and plot threads that were written in to add screen time have no purpose other than to say and do things that can warrant some flashy special effects work. And once again it is at the expense of any unified central narrative. I admit, Bilbo and the dwarves are finally expanded on, something that was painfully lacking in the first entry.

I think back now and can't seem to remember any of the dialogue from the film. You can tell what scenes the filmmakers thought were important and actually gave some attention to: Thranduil and Legolas interrogating an orc, and Bilbo talking to Smaug. Everything else was "let's throw in a few more shots of New Zealand here" and "wouldn't it be cool if the eye of Sauron showed up and just zoomed in and out of the screen for about ten full seconds?"

I did get to see the high frame rate version this time. And I will say that the headache-inducing visuals, like those from the first film, are made much more crisp and solid in 48fps. The IMAX 3D was pretty impressive. The scale -- especially of Smaug -- was accomplished very well. But again, no five consecutive minutes of the movie can be watched without an idiotic leap in logic, a contrived plot move, or a dumb (meant to be funny) look on Martin Freeman's face.

--------------------------------------------

Anyways...of course I will go see the third one next year. Because I am a sucker. I would like to hear from someone who really loved it and thought it was brilliant (as long as that same someone is more than ten years old). As I said, it makes me depressed to sit and reiterate the things I didn't like about a movie that I spent years anticipating. Now all I anticipate is the "Everything Wrong With..." video. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link to the first one.

P.S. Why the fuck are more of the orcs CGI? In the original trilogy there were orcs and Uruk-Hai. The Uruk-Hai were the bigger fiercer ones. And they were all played by humans in makeup. We got scenes like this:

Which, by the way, made us give a shit about the characters. In these films, the supposed orcs are all giant and white and fake as fuck. Are we finally at a point where it's cheaper to just digitize some bad guys instead of put some makeup on a guy? If that were the case, they could've saved half the movie budget if they had just removed the dwarves altogether.