An abqreviews day at the movies:
So I got off work early today and decided to waste my time at the cinema. Nice coincidence, as there were two films I wanted to see that were opening today(I'm not the type who tries to be there opening day for films, but today was just convenient.). Nothing spectacular, but all in all it was a satisfying experience.
First up is the long awaited Wall Street sequel Money Never Sleeps. With that awful title, as well as the fact that the very concept of franchising the 1987 cult classic goes against the film's message in a hilariously hypocritical fashion, I had good reason to be apprehensive towards the film. Surprise, surprise, Money Never Sleeps is actually pretty good. The character of Gordon Gekko has become such a cult hero that making him an outright villain would seem wrong, so the film wisely takes the step of trying to portray him as a man out of his time who may actually be a necessary evil, although it thankfully never goes so far as to completely reform him. Relevant and engaging, it's nice to see that director Oliver Stone hasn't lost his touch entirely. He manages to make the film seem faintly nostalgic by making it seem as if Gekko is the only sane man in a world gone mad(a viewpoint also present in The Expendables), but also makes the film relevant by addressing the recent economic crisis. Shia Lebouf, who plays the young protagonist, is surprisingly good in his role for a guy most famous for comedies and the Transformers franchise.
Oh, and it goes without saying that Michael Douglas kicks ass. Hope he recovers soon.
As to whether the film lives up to the original, I can only say that repeat viewings will bear that out. The quasi-nostalgic feel I mentioned, which, as I also mentioned, was also present in The Expendables, has me wondering if the 2010's will be a decade of nostalgia akin to the 70s. Maybe Blanche Knott will come back into print, too.
The other film debuting today that I saw was The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga' Hoole. As with Money Never Sleeps, I was also a bit apprehensive about this one. On one hand, while I'm no animal lover, I definitely have a soft spot for owls; they always seem so noble and mysterious. So a fantasy film featuring the little buggers seemed right up my alley. On the other hand, the trailers were quite weak, making it look like the film was going to be one of those lame epic fantasies that are so in love with their own ''epicness'' and special effects it's sickening. The other trailers made it seem like another dumb kiddie movie filled with annoying comic relief characters, scat humor and pop culture references.
Basically, this was what I was afraid of.
The other big turn off for me was the director: Zack Snyder. Yes, the same self-proclaimed ''visionary'' who brought us such crap as the Dawn of the Dead remake, the nonsensically over-the-top 300 and the misguided and unneccessary(but unjustly panned) adaption of Watchmen. Big. Big turn off.
But as for Guardians itself? I'm just going to say this once: It's the best children's fantasy film made in a long time. The animation is absolutely beautiful, the story is cliche, but so off-kilter and filled with unusual characters that it seems refreshing. Humor and cutesy characters are present, but kept to a minimum. Voice actors are well chosen, potentially cliche subplots aren't developed enough to become annoying, and the film can be enjoyed with or without 3-D. I also really like how it doesn't tone down the predatory nature of owls, in fact, the very first thing we see is an owl swoop down on it's prey. Even the one moment of scat humor(involving, quite predictably, owl pellets) is well-woven into the plot and comes off as quite funny. Hey, wouldn't anthropomorphic owls have the same reaction to their own bodily excretions that us humans do? All in all, it was a really enjoyable experience. The only weak parts of the film are a few embarrassing music montages as well as the fact that the film is sometimes too fast-paced for it's own good.
Although reviews seem mixed as of now, I can't help but feel kind of embarrassed for Snyder, because this film is probably going to go down in history as the best thing he ever made.
I really hope this film becomes the modern classic it deserves too. But already people are posting crap about it being a rip-off of Avatar because there's flying and a huge tree in both films. What the hell, people? What the hell? I suppose it's only a matter of time before the guy who made Delgo accuses Guardians of ripping off his film as well. Or maybe there's an obscure Turkish province which just popped out of the ground a few hours ago which has a similar name to one of the characters and is ready to go to war over it. Haters gonna hate.
I also must mention that I went and finished seeing Devil, which I had seen previously but walked out of when I realized it was going to become a religious tract. Hey, trolls numbering in the thousands brag like smug assholes about walking out of films because they disagree with things in them, so why should I miss out of the fun? Apparently I do not know the Grand Secret of Trolling, because expressing my opinion of the film on a certain horror film board got me banned for a week. Not surprisingly, the board in question is filled to the brim with trolls who brag about walking out of films. The banning eMail I recieved used words to the effect of telling me to "watch my ass or end up posting offensive images out of a malt liquor bottle". Yes, malt liquor. How ironic. Although few people read this LJ, everyone who does must know by now of my fondness for the stuff.
As for Devil itself, I have to admit, it's not bad for a Shaymalan film; Although one scene involving a character getting electrocuted seemed too Chuck Jones-esque for my taste. Still, the fact that I was right about who the "devil" in question was from my first viewing, as well as how the ending would revolve around redemption, further proves that my $10 would have been better spent at Starbucks.
First up is the long awaited Wall Street sequel Money Never Sleeps. With that awful title, as well as the fact that the very concept of franchising the 1987 cult classic goes against the film's message in a hilariously hypocritical fashion, I had good reason to be apprehensive towards the film. Surprise, surprise, Money Never Sleeps is actually pretty good. The character of Gordon Gekko has become such a cult hero that making him an outright villain would seem wrong, so the film wisely takes the step of trying to portray him as a man out of his time who may actually be a necessary evil, although it thankfully never goes so far as to completely reform him. Relevant and engaging, it's nice to see that director Oliver Stone hasn't lost his touch entirely. He manages to make the film seem faintly nostalgic by making it seem as if Gekko is the only sane man in a world gone mad(a viewpoint also present in The Expendables), but also makes the film relevant by addressing the recent economic crisis. Shia Lebouf, who plays the young protagonist, is surprisingly good in his role for a guy most famous for comedies and the Transformers franchise.
Oh, and it goes without saying that Michael Douglas kicks ass. Hope he recovers soon.
As to whether the film lives up to the original, I can only say that repeat viewings will bear that out. The quasi-nostalgic feel I mentioned, which, as I also mentioned, was also present in The Expendables, has me wondering if the 2010's will be a decade of nostalgia akin to the 70s. Maybe Blanche Knott will come back into print, too.
The other film debuting today that I saw was The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga' Hoole. As with Money Never Sleeps, I was also a bit apprehensive about this one. On one hand, while I'm no animal lover, I definitely have a soft spot for owls; they always seem so noble and mysterious. So a fantasy film featuring the little buggers seemed right up my alley. On the other hand, the trailers were quite weak, making it look like the film was going to be one of those lame epic fantasies that are so in love with their own ''epicness'' and special effects it's sickening. The other trailers made it seem like another dumb kiddie movie filled with annoying comic relief characters, scat humor and pop culture references.
Basically, this was what I was afraid of.
The other big turn off for me was the director: Zack Snyder. Yes, the same self-proclaimed ''visionary'' who brought us such crap as the Dawn of the Dead remake, the nonsensically over-the-top 300 and the misguided and unneccessary(but unjustly panned) adaption of Watchmen. Big. Big turn off.
But as for Guardians itself? I'm just going to say this once: It's the best children's fantasy film made in a long time. The animation is absolutely beautiful, the story is cliche, but so off-kilter and filled with unusual characters that it seems refreshing. Humor and cutesy characters are present, but kept to a minimum. Voice actors are well chosen, potentially cliche subplots aren't developed enough to become annoying, and the film can be enjoyed with or without 3-D. I also really like how it doesn't tone down the predatory nature of owls, in fact, the very first thing we see is an owl swoop down on it's prey. Even the one moment of scat humor(involving, quite predictably, owl pellets) is well-woven into the plot and comes off as quite funny. Hey, wouldn't anthropomorphic owls have the same reaction to their own bodily excretions that us humans do? All in all, it was a really enjoyable experience. The only weak parts of the film are a few embarrassing music montages as well as the fact that the film is sometimes too fast-paced for it's own good.
Although reviews seem mixed as of now, I can't help but feel kind of embarrassed for Snyder, because this film is probably going to go down in history as the best thing he ever made.
I really hope this film becomes the modern classic it deserves too. But already people are posting crap about it being a rip-off of Avatar because there's flying and a huge tree in both films. What the hell, people? What the hell? I suppose it's only a matter of time before the guy who made Delgo accuses Guardians of ripping off his film as well. Or maybe there's an obscure Turkish province which just popped out of the ground a few hours ago which has a similar name to one of the characters and is ready to go to war over it. Haters gonna hate.
I also must mention that I went and finished seeing Devil, which I had seen previously but walked out of when I realized it was going to become a religious tract. Hey, trolls numbering in the thousands brag like smug assholes about walking out of films because they disagree with things in them, so why should I miss out of the fun? Apparently I do not know the Grand Secret of Trolling, because expressing my opinion of the film on a certain horror film board got me banned for a week. Not surprisingly, the board in question is filled to the brim with trolls who brag about walking out of films. The banning eMail I recieved used words to the effect of telling me to "watch my ass or end up posting offensive images out of a malt liquor bottle". Yes, malt liquor. How ironic. Although few people read this LJ, everyone who does must know by now of my fondness for the stuff.
As for Devil itself, I have to admit, it's not bad for a Shaymalan film; Although one scene involving a character getting electrocuted seemed too Chuck Jones-esque for my taste. Still, the fact that I was right about who the "devil" in question was from my first viewing, as well as how the ending would revolve around redemption, further proves that my $10 would have been better spent at Starbucks.