Movie Tab II

Pretty much agree with most of the views expressed about "2012".


****HERE BE VARIOUS SPOILERS****


The CGI FX went from the ho hum to the outstanding and 'fun in destruction' time was had.
But even that felt strangely 'local'.
The film basically just followed the main characters around so we only saw destruction when they saw it, as such this 'global' apocalypse was almost entirely shown to have just hit America, a patch of India and a monk on a mountain in Tibet!

Much of the action is very very silly and unlikely and was also very repetitive, with a vehicle/plane escape sequence then being followed directly by another vehicle/plane sequence.

Elsewhere all was pretty much dire. And as hypocritical, two-faced and confused on what its stance is as you could imagine.
Cookie cutter characters made less than compelling cinema and anyone could have written this stuff as we have seen it all before.
We have on the roll call of tedium......

Ex-Spouses still in love.
Short end of the stick new love/step dad.
Angst-ridden kids.
Comedy kids.
Ruthless (White American only) politicians.
Ruthless and contemptible rich people.
Noble and perfect anyone who wasn't a white American politician.
A self-sacrificing 'people's President' (seems disaster only strikes when America has a Black President as well!)
An eccentric profit of doom.
A dumb, heart of gold, blonde.
A cute dog.
A Government guy (Black) who sees the wrong and ensures those naughty White people come to their selfish senses.

All dull, all very predictable and full of hypocrisy. Some of which it takes on but only unintentionally I think.
Much is made of not being selfish...and yet the 'Ark' and all the thousands on it are nearly destroyed because a bunch of good guys tried to sneak on and thus mess the door up!

And as for all the bleating about people being chosen...well many people would indeed have to be certain types of people with certain skills and knowledge to rebuild things.
The screenplay though throws cheap shots at this actually understandable plan by mentioning the picking of 'best breeding types' (where did THAT come from?) and people who have paid to get on.
But then it also back tracks on these criticisms....

Oliver Platt's much maligned character takes all this criticism but in a throwaway line he states that actually NO ONE would be going anywhere if those 'rich scum' had not paid billions to get on the 'Arks' and thus fund them.

And when the achingly hand-wringing Chiwetel Ejiofor moans that all the 'Ark' builders are being left behind (the good honest working Communist Chinese man) Platt, wonderfully, declares that he is free to give away his pass TO one of those good honest Chinese Communist working men if he so wants...he does not want!
So much for that bit of bleeding heart posturing then.

And really it does (in a film full of it) go too far into Capitalist, Western self-loathing when the rooms on the 'Ark' are shown to have enough room to house far more than just the one person allocated to them (they even include silver goblets!).
Sorry, but I find it offensive (and not remotely backed up in any way) that the makers assume that those evil White, Western, Capitalist pigs would care about the silverware having room than people having room!
Where and when was this film written, on a 60's Hippie commune?

Hypocrisy, racism, blatant socialism and confusion rule everywhere.
The film has anyone in positions of power or authority who are deeply religious (the one and only get out clause for White authority figures) be braver and more noble and yet then proceeds to wipe them all out with great gusto! The Pope/Vatican scene is a hoot!

It then has ALL non-White characters ALL be the most honest, noble and correct (from Tibetan monks, Chinese workers, betrayed by the Americans Indian scientists, mixed marriage sons with racist white Fathers, Black Presidents, and Black Government workers) and has ALL White characters (with any real screen-time)in any position of authority be scheming, self-serving and always wrong.

That (like poor picked on Mexico and The Middle East being the one and only places left for those Western Imperialists to live in "The Day After Tomorrow") the only place in the entire world left above water in "2012" is Africa seems telling!
So civilisation returns to its cradle as all that was decadent and corrupt is wiped away and so dear people...at last...we are ALL Africans now.

The final shot in the film looks like a poster Robert Mugabe and the Black Panthers would have on their walls.

And oh yeah...For all it's oh so noble and caring stance for film does the most ruthlessly cynical, down right immoral, thing out...
It makes sure the now unwanted other man and love rival (the BEST "I've only had 2 lessons" pilot in the World!) is routinely killed off before the 'we're a loving family again now' finale!
oh, very nice and noble!

If this is the end of the world...count me out.

Oh yeah. Anyone notice that in "2012" the Apocalypse was actually worth it in the end because a 7 year old girl would no longer be in training pants?!

You didn't like it then?

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

"Kiss, Kiss, Bang Bang" -

A damn mini masterpiece!
Funny, exciting, surreal and dramatic mixture that features two wonderful lead turns by Downey and Kilmer and equally good support turns by the whole cast.

Despite the purposeful homages, light parodies and cutting observations on other films this manages to be quite unlike any other film in that Tarantino way...but with a far less fanboy attitude (not that I mind that).
Shane Black shows he can handle directing chores as well as he can handle the writing ones.

Took me a foolishly long time to see this, so if you haven't yet...don't be a chump like moi...See it!
Hell, OWN IT!

I love KKBB and wished that it gave Kilmer the career resurgence that it gave RDJ.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Yep. Great flick. Glad you liked it, 42ndSt.
Highly recommended.

You rush right out to see 2012 but wait four years to see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. You need to reexamine your priorities, Bro.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Amen to that... Though I didn't care much for KKBB myself.

It's okay, there's still hope in the form of Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.

Anyway, recently seen...



A Serious Man (Coen brothers, 2009) -

Yet another strong effort from the Coens. I'm pretty sure this is the closest the brothers have come to doing a genuinely down-to-earth story of ordinary people, though it's still full of things both big and little that are very reminiscient of their other films. I'm not entirely sure if this is a plus or a minus for the film - leaning towards "plus", though. Loved the acting, everything was played well (if occasionally a little too histrionic) - and man, that ending...

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I watched Ink and posted my thoughts in this thread over a week ago.....

No no...My Wife rushed out to see "2012" (buy get one free Wednesdays) I just did my Husbandly duty and kept her company during her 'DESTRUCTION' fix.

Man, the things we do for love...

Thanks.

Zombieland (Reuben Fleischer, 2009)
I was almost disappointed when this got good write-ups because it meant I was going to have to plonk my backside down in front of yet another zombie movie. When I first saw Romero's Dawn of the Dead back in the early nineties I couldn't get enough of them. I wanted to see every gory zombie flick ever made; I was obsessed. How times change. Now it seems there's a new one coming out every week, and most of them are just variations on the same old theme. I've seen so many they're all starting to blur into one, and my eyes are beginning to glaze over like a zom-arrgghh!!! In short folks I'm fed up to the back teeth of zombie films, and can't wait for the current fad to blow over so we can move on to something new like slimy reptilian aliens disguised as humans, what? Oh forget it.

Surprisingly Zombieland is savvy enough to know how I'm (and I'm sure many others) are feeling. It's a smart satirical take on the genre that lets the zombies take a back seat, and instead focuses on it's four protagonists; geeky neurotic Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg who comes off like a cross between Woody Allen and Simon Amstell from Never Mind the Buzzcocks); Trigger happy zombie killer extraordinaire Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson who effortlessly steals the movie), and two conniving sisters, love interest Witchita (Emma Stone) and the deadpan Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The clue here is in the title; Zombieland suggests a kind of twisted theme park and that's exactly the metaphor for contemporary America that Fleischer effectively (if unsubtly) rams home. It's a witty, engaging take on the genre with a knowing indie feel, and one immensely likable performance from Harrelson. The zombie action is there too, but this is as much about friendships and trust as it is about the blood and guts. I liked it well enough, but was glad of the short (by today's standards) running time. Oh and I loved the worst kept cameo secret in movie history too.




Pontypool (Bruce McDonald, 2008) +
No it's not a promotional film for the Welsh tourist board, but yet another zombie variant (apologies for making that joke again). Yup if you can't beat the hordes of undead then inevitably you end up joining them, and that's exactly what happened to me last night. I actually enjoyed this Canadian slow burner a lot more that Zombieland, even if it is deeply flawed, and well, pretty ridiculous really.

This one nods John Carpenter's The Fog with Stephen McHattie turning in an excellent performance as a gravelly voiced radio DJ (Grant Mazzy) who unwittingly finds himself reporting on a bizarre series of violent riots from his studio. Accompanying him are his uptight producer Sydney (Lisa Briar - think Helen Hunt with darker hair), and her plucky young assistant Laurel (Georgina Reilly). Soon the BBC are contacting Mazzy for updates as the Canadian military quarantine the town, and it becomes clear a major crisis is taking place...

Set entirely within the confines of the radio station, Pontypool is an incredibly tense affair for the first hour, as events unfold in the form of telephone calls Mazzy receives from his eye witness weather man. It's well written, gripping stuff that sent a shiver down my spine on more than one occasion as the epidemic spread slowly closer to the studio...then the 'infected people' show up. Without giving too much away we gradually learn that symptoms of the plague involve people babbling incoherently and speaking gibberish. Yes these zombies literally spread by word of mouth; the English language to be exact. If it all sounds a bit daft, that's because it is, and things go steadily downhill from there. This being Canadian we get Mazzy and co speaking in French to stave off the inevitable, and an ending ripped directly from another apocalyptic (and far superior Canadian film) Don McKellar's Last Night. This is still well worth checking out though, because to be fair it doesn't play like a traditional zombie film at all, and the first hour really is compelling stuff. Shame, as Tony Burgess' script just seems to write it's self into a corner really.

Iron Monkey (Woo-ping Yuen, 1993)



Completely-fun kung-fu action-comedy-fantasy from master choreographer Yuen follows the exploits of a Chinese Robin Hood-type figure (Rongguang Yu) who thwarts a dastardly governor (James Wong) by stealing from him and giving to the local peasants to help them with just surviving. Early on, we learn that the Iron Monkey is actually a good doctor and he's aided and abetted by his nurse (Jean Wang) whom he earlier rescued from rape and abuse. Meanwhile, another doctor (Donnie Yen) comes to the Iron Monkey's town to try to capture him and he's accompanied by his young son (Sze-Man Tsang), but as the Governor's violent tactics increase, the "good guys" band together to fight the Governor's men and a group of Shaolin monks and nuns led by the super evil Hiu Hing (Shi-Kwan Yen). This Hong Kong fairy tale not only displays great bursts of wuxia action and some wonderful comedic elements, but it has a strong romantic theme throughout and certainly believes in the triumph of good over evil. The youngest character in the film, the second doctor's young son, is actually played by a girl and is set up to have a whole new series of adventures.



Note - For those of you who don't like "wire fu", remember two things. What these characters can do is basically no different than what Gandalf can do in The Lord of the Rings or the characters in Star Wars do using the Force. Secondly, this is a solid action-comedy, so although some nasty things happen here and there, it's prime mission is to entertain you for 90 minutes, which it certainly did me.

Fighting Elegy (Seijun Suzuki, 1966)



Borderline-insane, black-and-white Suzuki satire set in 1935 Okayama where Japanese male teenagers spend their final two years of high school in a military school setting where Kiroku (Hideki Takahashi) learns from older student Turtle (Yûsuke Kawazu) to break as many school rules as possible and get into as many fights and riots as he can start. It's only in this way can he learn to be a true Japanese man. Kiroku boards with a Catholic family and is in love with their daughter Michiko (Junko Asana), but he has to repress all his sexuality in order to gear 100% of his physical and emotional efforts towards fighting. As time goes on, Kiroku becomes more-and-more unruly and has to change schools where he gets some good beatings of his own, but eventually Kiroku's thirst for blood and violence grows to seemingly-unhealthy extremes as he threatens to kill half the school's student body and staff.



I honestly believe that this is Suzuki's most-outrageous film, at least of those I've seen. It almost makes Tokyo Drifter seem like a documentary, but it packs a lot of entertainment into its brief running time. First of all, the dialogue is full of outrageous lines about sex and violence, the kind of things nobody would share with even some of their closest friends, let alone people they barely know or want to beat up. Then there's the actual fights and rumbles themselves, which are quite over-the-top violent, and of course, it's here, maybe about an hour into the movie, where it becomes clear that Suzuki is actually making a serious point about how Japanese Imperialism develops and is taught to its youth. The strange thing about this film though is that it implies that Imperialism rose from NOT following orders but by being as anarchic and violent as possible, especially concerning your superiors, so it's up to you to decide whether this film is more of a satire or a farce.

Gate of Flesh (Seijun Suzuki, 1964) +



Set in Tokyo in the Summer of 1945, just after the end of WWII, Suzuki shoots this film in impressionistic color imagery to make up for the fact that he had a claustrophobic setting and almost no budget. The film was one of the first Japanese flicks which had nudity, and probably the most-striking scene in the flick is when the pimpless group of sweaty prostitutes seems to take almost sexual-pleasure in whipping and torturing their newest member Maya (Yumiko Nogawa) for violating one of their major rules by falling in love with petty thief Shintaro (Joe Shishido) who's hiding out from the American M.P.s and gradually taking control of the women and their way of life. The film was made with the intentions of it being a Japanese Adult film, but even so, there were numerous censorship issues Suzuki had to get around, and he does a good job of making a film which presents some extreme situations in a way which could still somehow be shown in 1964 while definitely pushing the envelope in some sexual and violent ways.



Besides the above-depicted whipping scene, there are a few other directorial flourishes which Suzuki provides. Three or four different times he superimposes a character reacting to the scene shown on screen. In other words, instead of editing, he'll keep his intense scene going, but show a slightly-diluted scene of another character reacting to the scene. It's actually a very strong cinematic style which I would use myself if given the chance. It's sorta reminiscent of what was popular in the '60s American films of John Frankenheimer, used especially effectively in The Manchurian Candidate, The Birdman of Alcatraz and The Train: the pan and slow fade-out to the fade-in of the next scene where you could see both images emotionally contrasting with each other. In Gate of Flesh it's very impressively used and I don't recall Suzuki using it in any of his other films I've seen. Another standout scene is the bizarre one where a steer enters the bombed-out residence of the women, and the hedonistic Shintaro decides to kill it then and there so he can cook and eat it.

Up (Pete Docter & Bob Peterson, 2009)



Most people already know about and/or have seen Up, so I'm not going to spend too much time discussing the plot any more than I'd like to mention that it covers about 70 years and involves friendship, love, marriage, family, adventure, dreams, trust, flying, children, pets, doing the right thing, believing in yourself, growing up, inner strength, fearlessness, and teaching old dogs new tricks, amongst many other great subjects.



Another thing I love about Up (and this can be said about most Pixar flicks just with different details) is that they love movies just as much as we film buffs do because after all who are these filmmakers? They're just film buffs like you and me who are lucky enough to make their own dreams come true by creating films which pay homage to those that we all grew up with and love. Up seems to pay homage to The Lost World (1925), Hell's Angels, King Kong (1933), The Wizard of Oz, Buck Rogers, The Red Balloon, Sleeper, A Boy and His Dog, Star Wars (I was laughing my butt off at that one!), Raiders of the Lost Ark, Fitzcarraldo, The Witches, The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park, The Incredibles and several more.




Michael Giacchino, the composer of Up's beautiful score and haunting theme, is quickly becoming one of my fave current musical score composers. He now has done The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Star Trek and Up in the last five years. As far as a few other personal comments I have to make, irrelevant of whether others have shared them, Up has got to be one of the best titles of any movie ever made. Not only does it describe how the film transports itself from one setting to another, but it also describes how it transports most of its characters and hopefully all its viewers from beginning of the film to its conclusion. Up is a definite "feel-good" movie which should make people feel happy to be alive, so I hope you find it an "Up" because although I know there are millions of people out there who actually prefer "downer" movies because you see them as more realistic and a maturing of the cinematic ethos to rise above "fairy tales" and just tell it like it is... you know, you're going to die, get used to it; what matter does it make if you have a chance to be happy now and then? Movies need to tell the truth, and the truth is a downer! Sorry, but I don't think that a movie which has a happy ending (LIES?) is good and one that has an "unhappy" ending is bad. I just think that you should allow movies to work their magic on you no matter what they seem to represent, and perhaps more importantly, no matter how you feel about what constitutes a "real" movie and a "fake" movie. Up is just about as real as movies get, and there's no allegedly "real" person ever seen on the screen. HA!

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Great stuff, Mark. Any chance I could bug you into elaborating on some of the references in Up? Particularly Sleeper -- that one's escaping me, at the moment, and I'm pretty curious about it.

Sleeper - "Woof, woof, woof. Hello, my name is Rags. Woof, woof, woof."

"What does he do? Leave little doggie batteries behind him wherever he goes?"

Two great reviews, Uxsed Future. I loved Zombieland, but have never even heard of Pontypool. After your review, though, I'll be sure to seek it out.

Watched this one on a recommendation from my grandmother, but I was not impressed. My dad, sister, and I found ourselves mocking a lot of it. I wasn't impressed with the cast that had been ensembled and the dialouge seemed terribly weak. I found that I did like the direction though. Overall, we decided to use our 3 hours otherwise.

Meet Joe Black:



hadn't heard much but praise about this classic. There were so many great things about this film. First, the acting. James Stewart gives a very impressive performance, and I don't think he could've been outdone in his role. Kim Novak did an excellent job portraying the terribly confused Madeliene. Also, Hitchcock's fantasic visuals. Hitchcock once again uses playful direction techniques that please the eye and impress. Another detail that interested me was the surprisingly small amount of dialouge throughout the film. The musical score gives it an extra creepy edge. But I felt the plot fell slightly short somewhere after the first hour. It seemed too unrealistic and too complex for its own good.

Vertigo:




A somewhat spoof of movies itself, Last Action Hero very much an action comedy. The opening is very suspenseful. Then, when we meet the young boy, it adds a touch of sensitivity. Finally, the comedy really begins. Loaded with wit as well as some good old corny action dialouge. Arnold is the perfect person in this role, and the little boy gives a very good performance. Not to be taken too seriously, a movie that's just plain fun.

Last Action Hero:




I didn't find anything completely original about this western. Cagney is great for the lead character, but the personality isn't exactly a change for him. Dobbins does a nice job as the kind kid who comes to work for him. What stood out to me about this movie was the character Jo. I liked her a great deal, and she seemed to add a little something special to the film. The script is interesting, and the storyline is a classic cowboy one. If you dislike westerns, this probably isn't one you will enjoy. But otherwise, a very enjoyable film. At 95 minutes, far from a complete waste of time.

Tribute to a Badman:



A fascinating drama that even kept me in suspense. The Children's Hour held my attention every minute. The cast couldn't be better. Shirley MacLaine gave a terrific performance. She really captured Martha's temper and confusion perfectly. Audrey Hepburn, who perhaps had the easiest of the three lead roles, was flawless. James Garner did an outstanding job, and had amazing chemistry with Audrey. All three of their characters eventually had breakdowns that really showcased the talent. Even the little Mary, who I wanted to slap that ugly look right off her face, was portrayed perfectly. The storyline is one that was very different for its time and that shows a great deal in the film. The sad ending will tug at heartstrings.

The Children's Hour:

__________________

Thanks Prospero

Let me know what you think of it; I hope you like it.