Star Trek Into Darkness

So here we go, actually reviewing a movie that’s come out into theaters.  Star Trek Into Darkness.  Except it’s been out for a week.  So odds are if you wanted to see this you have, and I don’t think my review is gonna change much of your opinion.  Still, I call myself a reviewer, so I guess I’ll still review it for you all, try to go a little more than just talking about about how good it looks, or how exciting it is, since you can watch a TV spot of it and have it tell you that.  So here we go, my review/musings/criticisms on the latest voyage of the Starship Enterprise.  Or the re-voyage as it were.

Reviewer: HoD Mark

So I think my biggest problem, excluding the whole set up for the movie, the twists that they try to create, and the fact the screenwriters seem to think that just throwing in references and redoing already done scenes from the older films excuses them from making anything actually original for their “new” star trek universe, is that none of the characters have any kind of growth or arcs.  Now yes, I did just name a bunch of things that irritated me in this movie, but I’d like to focus on the thing that doesn’t just focus on the new vs. old argument.  The screenwriters have the chance to add to these characters through their act of creating a new timeline, dimension, plot convenient story writing, whatever the fuck you want to call it.  But even though they did in the first film, what with having a much more headstrong Kirk, a new kinda love relation for Spock, and really that’s it, they only do a retread with this movie.  Kirk still has serious command issues, and he shows his growth into a smarter captain, making better decisions and really caring for his crew over himself.  Like the first fucking movie.  Spock has issues with his emotions, being that he’s half-human and half-Vulcan.  These problems fall over into his relationship with Uhura, and you watch as this kinda sorta doesn’t grow.  Just like the first fucking movie.  No one has a decent arc.  At all.  Either people have a bit more screen time or they get launched to the fucking bench.  Chekov gets sidelined to engineering after Scotty leaves and stays there until he comes in to do one fucking thing towards the end.  And yes, Scotty leaves at one point.  Whoops spoiler.  But come on, it’s a washed down, audience friendly summer blockbuster, he comes back and helps to save the day when he’s proved right and blah blah blah.  And you know, I was wrong, one character has a bit of an arc, and that’s Sulu.  For a brief while he becomes the captain and you see how strong he actually is.  His resolve is remarkable and interesting.  And then Kirk comes back and Sulu is back to being normal.

Before I move on, Bones is always fun.  Yes, he’s a walking reference, and entertainingly they acknowledge this, actually asking him to stop.  But he’s always done so well by Karl Urban.  And Benedict Cumberbach is, as always, great.  Unfortunately I can’t talk much to his overall character since he’s the crux of the rather weak story.  But he’s great.  Another thing is just that’s there is a whole backstory to that character that would put things into perspective, but it’s never addressed.  He gives a half-assed explanation to who he is but nothing more of why he exists.  It comes up for a second towards the end, but in such a way that seems cheap, like they forgot to put it in there in the first place. Really most of the film is just a really good looking, and well directed, action adventure story that just throws reference after reference at you, hoping something sticks.  So the story itself is incredibly straightforward with a few twists that Abrams can’t seem to keep himself from giving away in his directing.  Seriously, the guy is a good director with great flair and control, but he’s as subtle as a freight train on fire.  That’s carrying something that’s also on fire.

And I thought I was gonna be proven wrong right at the beginning.  It’s a beautifully shot chase sequence.  Kirk and crew are trying to save a planet from destruction without going against the Prime Directive.  (Which, to all people who don’t know, is that they must only observe but not be observed, which would then fuck up the natural progression of evolution on said planet)  This world is covered by bright red trees, the indigenous people have yellow markings, Kirk and Bones are in blue, and it comes together so well.  It never becomes difficult to tell what’s going on and it flows really well.  And it’s what I want to see, the adventures of the Enterprise.  Would have been great if this was still just a TV show.  But no, this just sets up the characters for their already established characteristics that go nowhere, and then away we go.

So there’s a top level and a second level to this movie.  Depends on how invested you are in the overall universe.  If you want an entertaining action movie, with great special effects, interesting action scenes, and a rather brilliant score by Michael Giacchino, then this will do for you.  If you want a more fleshed out look into a new Star Trek universe, then you can keep looking.  It delves into it, it tries, and I can see that.  But all it does is find itself reusing old story elements and changing it only slightly.  I know, I know, I’ve been yelled at by some people that that’s the point of a reboot.  But it’s not!  You want to take the old and create something new that uses the existing story as a basis to jump from.  To go boldly into something unknown.  Just taking things and redoing them by switching characters or having someone else say something is not the way to do a reboot.  It’s a chance to recreate characters, but they didn’t.  They used them as they have always been used.  And when the characters had to ask old Spock about how he handled a similar crisis, that’s when I gave up.  Come on now.  I mean, this movie, on the level of it’s place in the Star Trek universe, is just an entertaining fan service.  And it does a poor job at that.

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

Was I a bit too harsh? Maybe. And yeah, it was a little heavy on the criticism. But I kinda felt I had to for this. It's my opinion on the movie, so feel free to take it or leave it. Hell, prove me wrong in the comments. I'd love to discuss the finer points of the movie. Am I pandering? Maybe. This was a good movie, just clouded by so many poor story elements failing to do anything for the story and the overall universe. The movie ends with them again going out into space, on a voyage, and maybe this will let them find new, original stories for this Star Trek to face. I can hope.

Shotgun Stories

What? You want us to review another movie? Again? All right, fine. We'll do it this one time. But we're not going to make a habit of it.

If you must know, we watched Shotgun Stories, a little-known indie film by the (it seems to me) up-and-coming director Jeff Nichols. It's main star is Michael Shannon, an extremely talented actor whose career has blossomed of late. He's like an American Tom Hardy. Anyways, the movie came out in 2007.

Netflix: Yea sure

Picker: Dylan and the Dominoes

Mark:  I honestly did not know what to expect when I went into this movie.  I mean, I read the description -- two sets of brothers begin an argument that escalates and whatnot -- but I thought this would turn into a overly violent movie.  What with the title of Shotgun Stories and all.

Dylan: Well, you have to remember that, low-budget indie film that it is, it would be inclined to steer away from a lot of action and violence. But yea, the description made me think of that miniseries Hatfields and McCoys, insofar as Southern families feuding and everyone ending up getting killed over a pointless generations-old argument. But that’s not really how this went. Here’s a synopsis, I guess: in a poor Southern (Western?) town, a trio of brothers get into an argument with their step mother's sons at their father’s funeral. This leads to a back and forth that turns out bad for everybody. And yes, there are...two or three shotguns involved. None of them tell a story.

Mark: And there is that escalation throughout the movie, but it’s played remarkably realistically, at least I thought.  After the argument, things didn’t just become a shotgun buffet with fists flying as a dessert.  Rather, things grow gradually.  The tension and anger boil up over time.  Little things become bigger things, and further and further.  But what really drives all of this are the really well characterized characters, at the very least the main brothers with Michael Shannon.  You see their lives, who they are, and watch as the anger begins to come through them.

Dylan: Sometimes I want to question your understanding of how buffets work...and maybe guns too. But anyways, I agree. Through a few short, not necessarily wordy scenes, we get the entire picture of these three men. We meet the mother, briefly, and see how she interacts with Son (and Kid and Boy). And in the scene following the car wash confrontation, we really get to understand the dynamic between the three of them. And then you have Son's co-workers who place bets with each other about the origin of Son's scars, which tell a story of their own about their father and their childhood. It was very well done I think.

Mark: Not saying that the dialogue was sparse or anything, but rather it was to the point.  No one prattled on about things.  It was another dimension of these characters, how they speak and how they interact with one another that you get a sense of them.  For me, the best parts were when you watched Son, Boy, and Kid react together to things, or rather seeing their family dynamic.  How close they are, through everything they’ve faced, and how that defines them.  The standout was Michael Shannon, at least I thought he was.  He’s always been able to pull of this quiet but strong demeanor, and you can sense this kinda rage beneath the surface he hides so well.  And you really get to watch that demeanor start to crack throughout the movie.  But the other brothers were just as good, working well as a unit.

Dylan: I just had one issue with Boy, and it was that he reminded me too much of Kenny Powers (from HBO's Eastbound and Down). Aside from that I thought he was pretty good. In fact, I determined that the story is actually about Boy, not Son. Not because he is the one to take action at the end. Well, not solely for that reason. But he is the one who changes over the course of the film. He is shy and obedient. But has his passion for basketball. He stays out of the first little dust-up between the families and gets reprimanded. But we learn that it’s not really because he is afraid; he’s just not like that. Kid is the hot-head who jumps into things. Son is the protective eldest. Boy is probably the middle child. He respects Son and wants to make him proud, but still faces the responsibility of protecting his family.

font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mark: I agree, I did see Kenny Powers.  It’s the hair, it was way too similar to make me think of anything else.  And yeah, we really seem to see a lot of it through Boy’s eyes, and he is the one to grow throughout the movie.  And I think the basketball parts were a nice leave from all the tension, just to see what else goes on in this town, and the people.  Speaking of the town, and the setting in general, I really liked the way it was done.  A lot of the times we get a Southern setting, somehow it always seems too alien.  Like backwards, you know, the stereotypical view of the South, with trailer parks and people just sitting about with guns and looking like hillbillies.  But here everyone is really hard-working, determined, and there's a great sense of community created throughout the movie.  Like how no matter what happens, everyone hears about it, which in turn drives the plot a bit.  It was just a great use of the setting without making us feel out of place.

Dylan: I’m no sociologist, but the setting fits perfectly with the story. I mean, in a sense, this is sort of a culture that we as New Yorkers (oh, wait, where are you from again?) don’t really understand. So it comes off as being more fascinating to us than it probably would to people from Arkansas or something. Like that time we watched Winter’s Bone and were like “damn, these people lead depressing lives.” The broken and yet tightly-knit families, the honor and loyalty between siblings and all that. It’s pretty interesting.

Mark: I'm from Boston, but I get what you’re saying.  And exactly, with the Winter’s Bone comparison.  It doesn’t feel like a world outside of our own.  Some dark, depressing world I wouldn’t even want to go to.  Though the director did have a tendency to fall back on long takes looking at something.  Like the movie would hit a plot point or some moment between the brothers, and then we’d look at cotton fields for a minute.  Or an empty street.  Or a tractor.  It’s not a bad thing, since it adds to that setting stuff we were just rambling on about, but he falls back to it often enough that I took notice.  But beyond that, there was very little that I didn’t like about this movie.  It’s a slow burner of a movie, building tension really well over time with strong performances.

Dylan: Yea, I was ever-so-slightly disappointed in the mostly uneventful ending. But then again, it works perfectly with the rest of the film, so I can’t complain. I do have to point out one thing though. The entire movie happened because of Shampoo. He casually provoked absolutely every confrontation, and even when serious things started to happen and he was clearly involved, no one seemed to blame him. He’s like...the devil playing both sides against each other just for fun. Did you notice that?

Mark: Oh yeah, totally.  When I said everyone always hears about things, the brothers always end up hearing about everything through Shampoo.  He rolls up, asks for something, and then passes on some info that riles them up.  I mean, it plays to the small nature of the town, but Shampoo is almost always involved.  Also, I know this movie didn’t exactly have the most complex or interesting names, but Shampoo?

Dylan: Well didn’t they say that was a nickname because he used to eat Shampoo and that’s why he’s kind of dumb? Something to that effect. It’s different at least.

Mark: Oh, well clearly I missed that.  Still odd, but that makes more sense.

Dylan: Well that’s really all I have. I know that the next movie we’re doing is by the same director. And it’s interesting that his third, and only other movie, Mud, just came out and is also getting some critical praise. So now I’m excited. Even though - cough, cough - Matthew Mcconaughey.

Mark: True, but after Bernie, I give him a bit of credit.  He can act, I just think he chooses not to.  Also, just like with this one, it’s got Michael Shannon, so I think things balance out well.  He’s in each of the movies this director, Jeff Nichols, has done.  And it’s been a critically acclaimed partnership so far.

Dylan: Well, he's not in Mud. Too my knowledge. But yea. Trivia?

Mark:  Surprisingly very little in terms of trivia, probably coming from the indie background.  However, you want to hazard a guess as to what it’s rating is on Rotten Tomatoes?

Dylan: Umm. 79%. My lucky number.

Mark: Odd lucky number.  But no, in fact it holds a 91%.

Dylan: Well, I had one digit right. So there’s that.

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

If you usually just skip to this part to see what the next movie will be, forget it! As it happens, we already mentioned the next movie and who's in it in the dialogue. In fact, I can still see it from here. Just glance up like ten lines and...oh, wait...nope, scratch that. I now see that we didn't actually mention the title, only that it stars Michael Shannon and is the second film by Jeff Nichols. And it's called Take Shelter. Fuck, I ended up repeating myself anyway. Oh well.

I hate to be that guy who asks for comments. So let's just pretend that this is Mark typing. I see that we have a bunch of twitter followers. However, since it has come to my attention that just having a twitter account is all it takes to have followers, I am not entirely convinced anyone is actually reading the blog associated with it. So if you don't mind, if you actually read this, give us a little comment at the bottom. Tell us how we're doing. Point out my typos. Call Mark ugly. Just said "read". Or use a sophisticated series of letters, numbers, and symbols to create a large image of a thumbs-up. It's up to you. In the meanwhile, I "got a blind date with destiny... and it looks like she's ordered the lobster."

Coriolanus

Today we actually follow through with watching a movie we said we'd watch in the previous post. That movie is Coriolanus, a modernized version of the Shakespeare play, starring Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, and Brian Cox. It is the story of a military prodigy who is elected consul of Rome, only to be banished by the people for hating them so much. At least, that's about all the politics I managed to extract from the classical dialogue.

Netflix: Si
Pick: Gaius Markus Coriolanus

Dylan: Have you read Coriolanus the play?

Mark: I haven’t actually.  I’ve read plenty of Shakespeare, but never had the opportunity to read this one before.  However, after seeing this, I’ve essentially read it.

Dylan: Yea. I was just wondering. I haven’t read it either. And since I'm by no means well-versed in the Bard's work, I didn’t even realize it was one of his plays until you told me. Looking back, I wish you hadn’t, just so I could see how long it would’ve taken me to figure it out (not very long, I predict).

Mark:  When I first heard that this was a modern interpretation of one of his plays, I assumed that it might be rewritten in more modern language as well.  I assumed incorrectly, as this is more in line with a Kenneth Branagh rendition, in which the dialogue is taken verbatim from the text.being basically lifted from the play word for word.

Dylan: Well I hope that was a pleasant surprise for you. Because it was for me. It is amazing how powerful and relevant his words still are, especially when delivered by great actors. Although -- and we may as well make this our first topic of conversation -- the acting was a bit one-sided. I thought Ralph Fiennes was incredible. On top of that he had some really fantastic lines/insults that he delivered so fluidly and believably, I was kind of envious.

“You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate

As reek o' the rotten fens, whose loves I prize

As the dead carcasses of unburied men

That do corrupt my air, I banish you”

I know some people I would like to throw that one at and see what they're response is. "Yea, well uh...fuck you." "Yea, good one." Anyways, it’s funny because he was kind of the same way in In Bruges, but with less poetic ferocity. But on the other side of the acting spectrum, you have Gerard Butler, who isn't necessarily bad, but he sort of just mumbles his lines and doesn't really attempt to deliver them with the passion that Fiennes exuded.

Mark: Yeah, Shakespeare’s words have a surprising amount of weight when brought into the modern world and played against very real and pressing issues nowadays.  And with this modern interpretation, one of the things I liked the most was that he doesn't change it from Rome and Volsci to nations that exist now.  He left them as modern versions, just updated to our military hardware.  Which created this interesting sense of distance but connection to everything that was going on.  It didn’t have to rely on feelings we already had for real events or places, but create just as engaging ones using Rome and Volsci.

And as for the acting, I think that’s one of the major strengths of this film.  Fiennes is brilliant as Coriolanus, bringing at one point subdued passion and the next he lets fly with his words, as deadly as the bullets.  And I also really liked Brian Cox as Menenius, his political advisor.  He played the straight man to Coriolanus’ intensity, and he did it well.  And I’ll agree, while I thought Butler was good, he couldn’t hold a candle to Fiennes and it hurts him more since most of his scenes required him to work off of Fiennes.  And just one more, if I can keep talking about how great the acting is, has to be Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia, Coriolanus’ mother.  The same intensity as Fiennes’ character, just more controlled.

Dylan: The whole thing with the mother is an indication to me that you could probably dissect the shit out of this story, as you can with any of Shakespeare’s works. Luckily, this isn’t English class, so we don’t have to do that. As far as the movie goes, the other thing I wanted to comment on is how freaking excellently the dialogue was brought to a modern setting. Fantastic writing and directing right there. What was lacking in the outdated speech was made up for with powerful silences and actions that really made the characters fit into this world, and not seem like silly performers on a stage, which is how big screen adaptations of Shakespeare usually feel. I'm thinking, in comparison, of Leo DiCaprio in Romeo and Juliet. They tried to adapt the story to gangs in L.A., but it was so flashy and annoying, it just didn't work for me.

And the great ways the dialogue was delivered, not just from people standing around, but from news reporters on television, and thoughts in people's heads. Settings and maneuvers that obviously weren’t written in Shakespeare's play, but were added very smoothly and craftily to the movie. Very well done.

Mark:  Jesus, I’ve never seen you this way.  So happy and excited for a movie.  It’s a tad unnerving.  

Dylan: Yea. Hard to believe you picked it...

Mark: Really.  Cause I thought you wouldn’t be as into it.  Or you’d hate it.  Really glad I was wrong.  And I thought, this being Ralph Fiennes’ directorial debut, there were parts that showed how well he can do with the camera, and others that felt a little lacking.  One of the lacking for me is that he almost entirely relied on shaky-cam for the action/battle sequence.  That works some of the time to bring you into the moment, but I felt that it took me out because things became disoriented.  He didn’t seem to have complete control of it.  However, there were a few scenes that were absolutely brilliant.  One in which Coriolanus was waiting outside the council, listening to them praise his many achievements, and when he comes back in, there is an immense bloom of light that envelopes him slowly as his body blurs out.  This to me was an excellent blending of cinematography and story, as we’re actually watching the shining and highly respected image of Coriolanus envelope and hide the man, leaving what he is, not who he is.  He did this in several parts of the movie, which just lifted it up further than I expected going into this.

And yes, he did do a good job blending the modern with the Shakespearian.  The cuts to scenes of the war on TV screens and reporters were great.

Dylan: To be fair, it actually took me three sittings to get through the whole thing. Especially since the climax seemed to take place in the first 25 minutes, when Fiennes and Butler had their first fight to the death. What can I say? Watching Shakespeare in any form takes concentration. It’s like watching a foreign film. But anyways, I know what you’re saying about the shaky-cam. I think he was just experimenting with a bunch of different things. That same scene you cited has a lot of strange blurriness and camera whirling, which is usually reserved for scenes involving drug use or shell shock. And at the very end, there is just silence for the final minutes. We get this perfect image of Aufidius kneeling over Coriolanus' body, and you figure the credits are coming. But the very final image is Coriolanus' body being tossed into a truck with a thump.

(Sorry if that comes off as a spoiler. But if you know anything about Shakespearean tragedy, it’s that somebody has to die at the end. So back off.)

Mark: I loved the use of silence in that scene.  Having the emotional effect of the scene not rely on the sound of violence, but rather the action and then the emotion on their faces.  You watch as Aufidius (Butler) holds Coriolanus until his last breath.  No sound.  Just watching the action.  And it was a cold ending.  Just the final scene and then cut to black.  Credits roll.  But it went well with the tone of the film.  And the character’s life.  Coriolanus did what needed to be done for no other reason than it had to be done for Rome.  And the ending just ends with him.  No extra bit to show the rest of the characters.  No more to the story.  It worked very well.

And yeah, I think the one thing people just have to realize when they come into this movie is that you have to pay attention.  The dialogue is great and very well done, but if you don’t listen or you doze off, you’ll miss a lot.  But once you tune yourself into the Shakespearian dialogue, it’s amazing.

Dylan: Which I find annoying, since again, I had never heard of this play. I would have much rather read this than Julius Caesar. And thank you, Netflix, for suggesting Patrick Stewart’s MacBeth and Ian McKellen's King Lear, because now I want to watch those as well.

Mark:  Haha, yeah I already instant queued that Macbeth.  Saw it right after I was done and was in the Shakespeare mood.  So don’t be alarmed if that comes up in a later review.  Or the next review.  Cause we could all use a little Patrick Stewart in our lives.

Dylan: Also, I guess we should point out that Jessica Chastain is in this movie. In case there's any fans out there. But, she really doesn’t do anything for me, or the movie. I’ve decided she is a mix between Keira Knightley and Anne Hathaway, in that, I don’t find her as attractive or talented as everyone else. And she and Hathaway also have a knack for ruining Tom Hardy characters. But anyways...trivia?

Mark: I agree, she didn’t really bring anything to the movie.  But interestingly, apparently, when Ralph Fiennes showed the rough cut of the movie to Kathryn Bigelow, she decided to offer Chastain a role in Zero Dark Thirty.  So what the fuck do we know?  And that also doubles as my trivia, as there isn’t much for this.

Dylan: I see. Well, I have a question for you. Has Ralph Fiennes directed/is he in the process of directing anything else?

Mark:  He is in the process of directing his second film, The Invisible Woman.  With a short synopsis of “At the height of his career, Charles Dickens meets a younger woman who becomes his secret lover until his death.”  With Fiennes playing Dickens.

Dylan: Meh. Believe it or not, Dickens is a harder sell for me than Shakespeare. We'll see.

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

There. We watched a movie and talked about it. Now the spiders crawling under my skin can sleep a little longer, and I won't have to cut them out with a box cutter again. Just kidding. I don't even own a box cutter.

Anyways, "I feel like a, like a slice of butter...melting on top of a big ol' pile of flapjacks...yeah". I guess to make that quote relevant I have to offer a piece of movie/TV news: Bill Hader is leaving SNL, hopefully in pursuit of something that's actually funny. Our next movie is going to be Shotgun Stories, which I picked because of Michael Shannon. He's the villain in the upcoming Man of Steel, he was in Revolutionary Road for a few minutes, and he's a regular on Boardwalk Empire, but I really want to see him in something of his own. Hopefully this little indie film quenches my thirst.

V/H/S

So far, we haven't really done any horror movies. Yet it seems to me that most horror titles would be found in the section of drunken critic recap. I am not a big fan of horror movies, unless there's something about them that separates them from the rest. For example, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil and Cabin in the Woods -- which, incidentally, have the exact same scenario -- are great stories because they take everything we expect and turn it inside out. Which is hard to do in a usually very predictable genre. What are there like six Paranormal Activity movies now? That's just irresponsible film-making.

Last night I decided to watch something I had heard very little about. A movie called V/H/S, from 2012.

Netflix: Yes
Viewer: D'yltagnan

Not to be confused with Attack of the Killer Video Cassettes from Outer Space

The premise here is that a bunch of douche-bags break into a house to find a particular V/H/S tape. In their search, they come across a collection of tapes, that they of course watch. Each one a different, and completely unrelated, horror vignette. Let me just say off the bat, the entire movie is done with that irritating shaky-cam thing that I guess is really cheap, and won't seem to go away. And that includes the scenes with the douche-bags, since I guess they are also filming themselves robbing a house.

Don't expect too much story here. After each vignette we return to the house to find that another d-bag has disappeared. I guess the videos are killing them off, Ring-style or something. It's never really explained. And each story poses more questions than it bothers to answer. Which in some ways adds to the creepiness of it all.

I will say, though, that I liked the creative ways they had people using cameras in each tale. In one story, a guy had a camera hidden in his glasses to document a wild night. In another, it was all Skype recordings. It shows at least a little bit of effort in the writing. Also, the stories were relatively original. I mean each one kind of started out the same way: a group of young adults (usually horny and/or drunk) encounter some violent and horrible stuff. But I have to say, the 'monsters' and surprises were unusual and fairly entertaining.

The dialogue is somewhat painful to listen to. But only because it's remarkably accurate. Listening to four moronic drunks talk about how wasted they are, and the chicks they want to nail, is pretty hollow, but then again, I can totally hear certain friends of mine having that exact conversation. Unfortunately several of the stories have this and other slow, time-wasting conversations before something interesting happens, which was kind of off-putting, at least in the beginning.

Overall, it wasn't bad. Maybe the key to a good horror story is keeping it short. Each segment required a limited amount of focus, and not much investment in the characters or their lives, which is just the attitude you have going into a movie where you assume everyone is going to die. To drink to this movie may make you nauseous, but then again you may be more able to tolerate the irritating characters and dialogue.

Drunk Meter: 5/10

Also, I guess you want to know if it's actually scary. Well, like I said, there's not much story or character development, so there isn't much in the way of psychological thrill. The suspense only comes from the usual what's-going-to-be-around-that-corner curiosity. What's nice is that the scares do not rely on loud noises or sudden camera moves. Things just steadily get creepier until everyone is dead and the video ends. So is it scary? No, not really.

Six Shooter

So we've decided to branch out into the world of Short films.  Is this because we're lazy and short films are, well, short?  Probably.  But more because alot of these are brilliant little stories that do more in about twenty minutes than most major blockbusters can do in two hours.  And also some major directors got their starts doing short films.  So it's a chance to see where they came from, where they learned to hone their craft.  Seeing what they were while knowing what they become.  So without further ado, I bring you:

Funny how things work out; we just review In Bruges and now I'm doing a write up for Martin McDonagh's first foray into film.  Staring Brendan Gleeson, the film follows Donnelly from the hospital where he learns his wife has passed away back to his home.  But if that's all that happened, it would be a ridiculous short film and you and I would have to wonder how it won the 2006 Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film.  But luckily, between the hospital and home, Donnelly finds himself on a train, talking and interacting with various people on board.  A distraught husband and wife, an off-kilter teenager, a mouthy concession worker, and a cop or two.  And this is where the film shines, in the characterizations of all of the people.  They're engaging and real, all trying to cope with one thing or another.  But instead of things going as simply as just talking about feelings, the teenager, who uses swears like buffers for words, speaks without a filter on his thoughts and works his way into everyone's issues.  It's an incredibly emotional train, and this kid wants to just figure out the root of the issue, and keep poking it.  But he never comes off as malicious, just incapable of seeing what he's doing.  He's just being himself.  And we watch and listen to them, engaged from the first word to the last.

Now this is Martin McDonagh we're talking about.  We'll I'm talking about, but fuck it, that sounded better.  So things are both depressing but funny.  It's a humor that comes from sadness; that sometimes we need to laugh to shake off the pain.  And there is a part with a cow and some explosions.  Now if that didn't grab your attention, then check that pulse, cause I think you're dead.  But it's not out of the blue; they're not passing a field were some cow has had it up to here and gone all Rambo on things.  It flows well with the story, and creates some new ways to look at a character.  But also being McDonagh , things get violent.  Bloody violent.  Which just goes to show how good of a writer and director McDonagh is that he can do so much and create so much character in so little time.  But a final warning, this is not a happy film.  McDonagh likes to show you how dark human life can be, and here he is letting us see how a day can go from bad to worse, though humor and blood.

And if you're thinking, "Jeez, that's a pretty long review for a short film", you'd be right.  But that's kind of the beauty of this movie, and short films in general.  The good ones have so much condensed in under 30 minutes that you can find so much to talk about.  Find so much the filmmaker wanted to bring to light.  And Six Shooter has that; the humor, the violence, the engaging characters and a storyline that shows us how how dark a day can really get.  So go watch it.  Do it.

Iron Man 3

As the summer gets into full swing, the two of us are gonna be seeing lots of movies. And although movie reviews are a dime a dozen, we figure if any of you are loyal to this site, maybe you'll check out our thoughts first. I know I sure will.

That being said, I had the pleasure of an early viewing of Iron Man 3. Unfortunately, this post is about a week late, so that doesn't really matter. But here it is, nonetheless. If you're one of the six or seven people who haven't seen it yet, or even if you have and want to get another opinion, read on.

Mark and I have both seen it, but I'm lazy and decided to just copy my review from my other blog. Hopefully he'll add his input at the bottom.

I have a number of issues with this film. I realize I'm being rough on it; it's just a summer blockbuster meant to make money. But given what Marvel and Disney are trying to accomplish with the extended Marvel Universe, I find this installment to be rather lacking, and hopefully not an indication of what's to come.

My main complaint is that it was not what we were led to believe it would be. I was very excited to see a grand battle of wits and firepower between Tony Stark's Iron Man and his arch-nemesis The Mandarin ala Batman and the Joker. And that's what the trailers and the reports teased. What we finally get is far from that, and much less thrilling. I can understand the tactic of misleading reports in order to hide spoilers and twists and turns, but to completely eliminate a fascinating story line and replace with the usual shit is just lazy. It may stand above the second movie in almost every way, but that doesn't make it the masterpiece some people are hailing it as.

For example, you have these bad guys, who have undergone some sort of medical procedure in which their DNA has been enhanced. We see that the positive effect is bodily regeneration and perfection. The creator, Aldrich Killina, cures his own handicap; other people who are missing arms and legs and what not -- soldiers, children with birth defects, etc. -- can grow their limbs back instantly. It's definitely a world-changing serum, or at least the beginnings of one. Except a frequent side effect is that  some have the ability to heat their bodies to extreme temperatures, which, for some reason, gives them super strength, super speed, and the ability to, well, breathe fire. Oh, and make them evil, I guess. All very gimmicky effects that don't enhance the plot at all. The true nature of this serum, how it works, and how it factors into the plot or the larger universe, is never really fleshed out. As with the alien invasion in The Avengers, it should definitely have effects that continue to ripple through this shared universe, but...it doesn't.

Which brings me to my next point. Tony Stark has PTSD after his near-death experience in The Avengers. To cope with this, he has been building Iron Man suits, I guess in preparation for the next attack. But here, I have to say, the trailers put more emphasis on his inner turmoil than the movie did. He had a couple of panic attacks that really didn't affect anything, beyond being a reason for him to build neat suits, which, in turn, only exist for the epic finale. Seriously, after the finale Tony just blows them all up because...he's cured...I guess.

One of the worst things to happen to movies with sequels is that the villains all have the same motive and the same strategy over and over again. In the original Spider-Man trilogy, it always came down to villains luring Spider-Man into a trap using Mary Jane as a decoy. With Iron Man, each villain has a grudge against Tony and tries to use their technological expertise to overcome his. Obadiah Stane thinks he should run Stark Industries, so he funds some terrorists, puts Pepper in danger, and tries to kill Tony; Justin Hammer wants to eliminate the superior competition in weapons manufacturing, so he hires Ivan Vanko (pretty much a terrorist), puts Pepper in danger, and tries to kill Tony. Well, I don't want to give anything away, but the villain in Iron Man 3 has, for all intents and purposes, the same idea. I realize 'kill the bad guy, save the girl, and live happily ever after' is the go-to scenario, but come on. At least in The Dark Knight, Nolan just said 'fuck it, let's kill off the love interest.' And if any love interest was more deserving of being killed off than Rachel, it would have to be Pepper Potts. The romance between she and Tony is just so lame and unbelievable.

Now, I am a sucker for Marvel movies, especially the Avengers mega-franchise. But as a complete nerd for these movies, I just wasn't satisfied. The Mandarin is hinted at in the first two movies, but the average viewer most likely didn't notice. In this installment we learn that the Mandarin has in fact had it in for Tony since before the events of the first movie. And therefore it probably would have been smart and clever to reference those hints from the earlier films, just so people can go back and be like "holy shit, they were planning this all along. Awesome!", since planning things several films in advance is sort of Marvel's shtick.  But instead they don't mention any of that. We get one flashback, which throws in all the important characters and one cameo (this flashback, to its credit, is referenced in the first film), and suddenly we have everyone's motives for the rest of the movie. Also, there were a ton of theories about where this movie would leave us, in terms of The Avengers 2. Would they introduce any new characters (fans theorized about The Wasp or Ant-Man)? Would Tony end up in outer space, perhaps leading into the Guardians of the Galaxy movie? The answers to these questions is simply no. The post-credits scene features Bruce Banner (which is irritating, because it forces you to wonder where he -- and S.H.I.E.L.D. and Cap -- are the entire time terrorists are blowing up Americans) but it isn't very exciting and leaves nothing to be desired.

In a way, that plot shift in the middle of the movie that I mentioned earlier is kind of a 'fuck you' to the hardcore fans. I chalk up my complaints to crappy writing. We are told that Tony has inner demons, but he just deals with them the same way he deals with everything else: witty sarcasm. He and Pepper are never in mortal danger, and his PTSD never affects his ability to creatively kill bad guys and save the day.

Overall, the movie is entertaining. The set pieces are impressive, although they frequently get so big, you can't focus on what you're there to see: Iron Man suits kicking ass. The acting is the usual. For people like me, expecting an amazing entrance into The Avengers: Phase II, don't get your hopes up. It's just a typical summer movie: all noise and bright lights, with little to no character development or story. I feel foolish for thinking it'd be more than that.

The Gate

Groovy! I think I figured out how to put a video right in the post. It may only work for YouTube videos, but that's a start.

Anyways, I came across this gem a week ago by accident. It's called The Gate, and it's by Matt Westrup. I'm going to assume you haven't seen it, because I'm pretty sure people don't watch short films. But it's interesting, creepy, disturbing, and surprisingly relevant. You'll never stay in the office after hours again.

...told you.

Short Films

It is basically our mission to watch films for the sake of watching films, to see things we haven't seen before, and to hopefully churn up some interesting things for like-minded readers. In that same vein, we have decided to throw in whole new section, to mention/recommend/note/talk about short films.

People always forget that these things exist until there's an award given to one they've never heard of and aren't really interested in seeing. I think the main obstacle is that they are hard to find unless you're really looking for one. They don't show them in theaters...do they? I know Pixar movies usually have a cute short before each movie, which I think is fantastic. But otherwise, no one really makes an effort to see them.

Which is a shame, because in a lot of ways, a short film is harder to create than a feature film. You have to take an idea -- a story, a theme, a message -- and compress in down into a 15 minute or less segment. It definitely takes a talent different from full-length film making.

Anyways, like most of you, we don't really watch short films either. But I think now is as good a time as any to get started. Now, I don't really know where we find these films yet. Hopefully they're on the internet somewhere. I happened to 'stumble upon' the first one that I want to recommend. Maybe I'll figure out how to get them to play right on this blog. That would be cool. I don't suppose we'll be talking about them very much; just putting them out there. Enjoy.

In Bruges

Every time I go to add a post, I have to look at the graph of pageviews for our blog. I find it interesting that on random days there are spikes in pageviews. How does that even happen? I know it's not because of our mediocre twitter account or our so-called friends. And then there was the time we had nearly ten times the usual number, without a new post. 

Alas, we are back after a too-long hiatus, with In Bruges. It's a 2008 film starring Colin Farrell, Ralph Fiennes, and Brendan Gleeson. The story of two hit men with emotional problems, hanging out in Bruges, awaiting their next assignment.

Netflix: Maybe in Bruges
Pick: Dark Defender

Dylan: Wow. It’s been a while. I almost forgot what a movie was.

Mark: Yeah, been too long.  Been staring at a blank screen for a while, wondering what was going on.  Then I turned on the TV.  All good now.

Dylan: Let me just say, this was definitely a good movie to come back on. I’d never seen it before. I’m not sure how popular it is (or was when it came out) and how many people have seen it. But I had heard good things (from you), so I wanted to give it a go. And I really enjoyed it.

Mark: It was, when it came out, the first major film of Martin McDonagh, whose only other work was a short called Six Shooter. So people knew of him, mostly from his plays, which bear a lot of similarities to what he did with In Bruges.  Namely the character studies relying mainly on the dialogue between the characters.  And this movie has some of my favorite dialogue.  I’ve seen it a bunch of times, which should give a good indication of, at least for me, how good it is.

Dylan: “If I grew up on a farm, and was retarded, Bruges might impress me but I didn’t, so it doesn’t.” ...Probably my favorite line. That’s what I liked right off the bat. How much Colin Farrell’s character Ray hates Bruges. I, personally, am a sucker for travel and tourism. And Brendan Gleeson’s character Ken was the perfect tourist, climbing all the towers, visiting churches and old buildings just to appreciate the culture and history. And Ray is sitting in the corner shaking his leg like a five year old. That in itself was very funny to me. Ray's dislike for the beautiful city makes him unlikable at first; it takes a while before you start to root for the guy.

And speaking on the humor, I wouldn’t really call the movie a comedy. But the humor is dark and subtle, and is mainly in the often absurd or unusual dialogue.

Mark:  It’s much more of a human drama, and the humor that comes in the movie feels so natural with the characters.  Nothing feels forced.  They’re reacting as anyone would, albeit a little more sweary and violent in cases, but human.  It’s humor that is at one moment funny, but then sad, when you realize where it’s coming from.  And I’m partial to “YOU’RE A FUCKING INANIMATE OBJECT!”  Probably still one of the best responses.

And speaking of Colin Farrell, I was really surprised how great he was in this.  I’m so used to him in bad action movies or just as some boring, attractive hero.  But in this he’s a emotionally wounded and scared guy, who just doesn’t want to be in fucking Bruges.

Dylan: The acting was all very good. And I enjoyed Brendan Gleeson’s character very much. You don’t see him in many things, though I'm sure he's more popular in the UK. All that really comes to mind for me is 28 Days Later, and Gangs of New York; and his parts weren’t very significant. I suppose he’s also in some Harry Potter movies, but I wouldn’t ask anyone to sit through those. Also, Ralph Fiennes’ accent and temperament were almost identical to those of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast, which made him all the more entertaining.

Mark:  Having seen Sexy Beast, I totally see that.  At one point calm and collected, just trying to figure out what’s going on.  And the next: terrifyingly violent.  His dialogue is some of my favorite, just how absolutely swear-laden it is, but somehow never to the point that it would seem ridiculous.  And the interactions with the midget as well as Ray’s fascination are other seemingly unnecessary things but serve so well to create these characters.  And I think that’s the thing that makes this movie stand out so much, that we really start to care for these characters, or at least care about what’s going on with them.  Ray, in particular, when you find out why he’s so emotionally damaged.

Dylan: Yea I enjoyed the setting and the small cast and how, for a linear story, it wasn’t afraid to go around in a few circles. And in the end, all of it came together. We don’t need to see too much of each character, but we know exactly where they’re coming from and the situation they’re in. Not to mention the interesting disconnect between the actual inhabitants of Bruges and the visitors. The three main characters, the midget, and the Canadian all stick out from the peaceful Christmastime backdrop of the city.

Mark:  Everything is supposed to either show off a character trait of someone, or create odd levity to difficult moments.  My favorite character, or at least at the top, has to be Yuri, the gun dealer.  He shows up twice, but is always funny, in an awkward , out of place sort of way.  Meant to juxtapose how the characters there to get weapons from him know exactly what they have to do.

Dylan: My favorite might have been the Canadian, whose typical tourist attitude results in a hilarious scene. Which brings me back to the clever banter that goes on between the characters and how, even if it seems stupid, it ends up coming back to the story later on. Ray's rant about midgets trying to commit suicide is brought up three or four more times, and also serves to reflect his own suicidal thoughts. Furthermore, I enjoyed how Fiennes’ character Harry is set up during the first half of the movie. You hear about him, you detect Ken’s and Ray’s fear of him, and then you hear his voice in the letter and on the phone and you realize how nuts he is. All before you actually put a face to the temper.

Mark:  Yeah, this movie does an amazing job characterizing everyone.  But what I like the most is that everything comes back to just Ray and Ken.  It’s the story of two friends stuck in an unfortunate situation.  On the onset, you think that situation is just being trapped in Bruges during a job, but as you listen to them interact, you learn how much more complicated everything is.  The circumstances, as well as them.  Leading to an amazing confrontation between Ken and Harry, and soon after with Ray.  It’s really engaging all the way through, if you enjoy really well-written dialogue and rounded characters.

Dylan: And the moral of the story is: they’re all terrible at their job.

Mark:  Except Yuri.

Dylan: True. And the pregnant hotel owner, who refused to allow a shootout in her hotel, despite the two lunatics with guns on either side of her.

Mark:  Yeah, it’s the “regular” people who seem to show how simple everything can be.  And then Ray, Ken, and Harry show how everything can spiral out of control.

Dylan: Which again exemplifies the significance of the setting, Bruges, and how each of the three main characters relates to it. And all that talk about hell and purgatory...makes you wonder what Bruges is supposed to represent, or if it’s different for each of them. Harry and Ken love the city, but Ray hates it. And in the end, his fate is the only one we’re unsure of. I suppose more thought could be given to this if I were writing a paper or something. But that's your job. I'll just say it was a great and interesting movie.

Mark: Yeah, and I guess that's what kinda gives this movie it’s rewachability in my mind.  How on one level it's a funny/sad drama about these two hitmen stuck in Bruges.  But then on another, you see how much this looks at human nature and what we do and what we have to do.  The film takes long shots of characters walking or doing anything we would normally do as tourists, which at one moment is to really show off Bruges, which is a character in and of itself, and at another is to extrapolate what these characters are going through.

Dylan: You said it. And I would definitely watch this film again.

Mark:  But just because it’s been a while, doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten about my trivia.  Yeah, gonna make you all suffer through it.  First, both Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell went up for the best actor (Comedy/Musical) Golden Globe.  Who won?

Dylan: I’d say Gleeson.

Mark: And you’d be wrong.  Colin Farrell won it, and I was happy about that.  Gleeson was great as Ken, but Farrell brought such sadness and humor in such a way I didn’t think he could.

Dylan: Wow, I figured they’d pick the older mentor character for sure. Or maybe that’s just the Academy I’m thinking of.

Mark:  Well, It’s the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.  Not the Academy.  But still a true enough statement.  And just a question that will at once be interesting and also informative for people to know what they’ll be hearing: How many times do you think they say “fuck” and any version of it?  

Dylan: Quite a bit, mostly in fast, European-accented banter.

Mark: Well, it’s 126 times.  So apparently, seeing how the film is 107 minutes long, that’s 1.18 “fucks” per minute.

Dylan: Ah, reminds me of my childhood.

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

Well, we're back. If you haven't seen In Bruges, our consensus is: certified fresh. Whoops, I'm probably not allowed to say that. Well, it's a good movie and you should check it out if you get the chance. Our next movie is going to be Coriolanus, which -- I guess if you're an English major -- you may realize has something to do with Shakespeare. But fear not, it has Ralph Fiennes (again) and Gerard Butler in it, so how bad could it be?

We have some other things for you to check out in the meantime. Hopefully in a day or two we'll have a brand new section devoted to short films. We're not going to review them, necessary. We just think they should be more available to people who generally overlook or can't find them. Unfortunately, they are so hard to come across, even we are having difficulty getting a bunch together. I guess it's going to take some of that loathsome stuff they call 'effort'. 

Also, statistics say that if you watch movies, you've probably already seen Iron Man 3. And you may have even read my review post about it over at Serenity Now. If not, don't worry. I'm giving it the old one-two copy-paste onto Back Row Critics, to beef up our In Theaters section. If you want Mark's opinion of the movie, he'll probably add his own thoughts shortly after.