Is it May already?
I've been kinda bad about posting, but it's been kinda busy. No one really reads LiveJournal anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
But, since I have a moment,
Oops! I put these first two in my March round-up, but I technically saw them in April. Here they are again to please my OCD.
Insidious: B
This is your standard haunted-house movie, completely with a descent into silliness at the end, but I actually had a really good time with it. Sure, it's by-the-book jump scares exacerbated by loud music stings, but they were effective on me. In other words: I jumped.
Side note: Because it's from the same distributor as Insidious, I saw a trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. (It's better in the theater.) The trailer is a microcosm of the Insidious experience. It starts off by creating atmosphere mostly through sound. Then it sets events into motion so that you know there's going to be a big scare at the end, but there's nothing you can do about it. Then it delivers the big scare.
I see a lot of horror movies, but I have a hard time keeping my eyes open during that trailer.
Source Code: B+
I love Duncan Jones because he's unapologetic about being a hard-sci-fi guy. Source Code has action, but it's not really an action movie, and there's really the merest hints of romance. Instead, it's mostly about ideas. I don't think that the ideas in this movie were as strong as the ones in Moon. There was a lot of time spent after Source Code going over what happened to figure out the loose ends, and some of those didn't have satisfying conclusions. (I can give details to people who have seen it, but, you know, they're full of spoilers.) I think that broadening the scope of his movie from Moon also made it murkier. But I'm definitely on board to see what he has cooking up next.
New movies:
Your Highness: B-
I'm officially disappointed. Not with the idea: Like Pineapple Express was for '80s action films, Your Highness is a pretty straight-faced cheesy fantasy movie with jokes layered on top. I like that approach, but I don’t think that Your Highness was as good at being a fantasy movie as Pineapple Express was at being an action movie. Things seemed either chopped up or not thought all the way through, and nothing seemed like it was driving the characters from place to place except for the desire to tell jokes about those places. (For me, the low point of the movie was the labyrinth. Sure, jokes about a Minotaur and its member are funny. But how did Danny McBride get away with that sword? Where did Natalie Portman get that pan flute from, and, if she knew it would soothe the minotaur, why didn't she use it the first time she saw it? They all got separated-how did they find each other again? And how did they get out of the labyrinth? These questions matter to me so much that I was distracted from the Minotaur boner.) Maybe I'd be more forgiving if it was funnier. It was funny, but not on the level of something like Anchorman. I want David Gordon Green to follow his passions, but I hope his passions bring him back to making quiet pretty movies soon, because I think he's be better at them. They can be funny, too, as my favorite part of All the Real Girls can attest.
Hanna: A-
I'm learning that I don't care if movies are style-over-substance. If people can enjoy something that features well-rounded characters but no story or visual flourishes, why isn't it okay to make a stylish movie that is colder towards its characters? I like that Hanna seems detached-that's what gives it its fairy-tale quality. And, even then, reports of "you don't care about anyone in it" seem exaggerated to me. Sure, I didn't feel quite so attached to Eric Bana, but I did feel sympathy for Hanna. And I loved, loved, loved Sophie. (That actress is in Tamara Drewe playing a very similar character. One to watch, that Jessica Barden is.) It also manages to have a kickass girl heroine who isn't sexualized in any way, so everyone who complained about Sucker Punch should go see it. If not for the girl power, then for the amazing tracking shots. Then again, maybe I'm just partial to it because it's another movie with a villain named "Marissa."
Henry's Crime: D
There are things I like about this movie a whole lot. Namely, that it was filmed in Tarrytown. Yay, Tarrytown! It's weird to see how much good will that gives me. More positives: Though I have no affection for The Cherry Orchard, they did an interesting job of weaving elements of the play through the movie. And there are a few interesting performances, too; Vera Farmiga is all-around great, James Caan is a lovable coot, and Peter Stormaire brings his space dementia into the theater as a crazy director. I even liked watching Keanu Reeves pretend to be an amateur actor, mellowing his way through Chekov while getting acting advice from everyone on set. But it's that laid-back vibe that ultimately makes the movie really confusing. Keanu is pretty charmless in it, and it's impossible to tell if he's a criminal mastermind, or someone who is just along for the ride. I really wasn't sure how I was supposed to read him at all, and that dragged on the entire movie. I actually wished I could've seen it with a different actor, to see how much of the Keanu blankness was intentional. But, hey, he made a good Lopakhin.
Scream 4: C
I very much enjoyed the cold open and the Big Reveal (which I will not spoil), as well as everything that came after. But the rest just seemed like it was going through the motions. It wasn't as funny as the previous Scream movies, and the characters weren't as vibrant. Rory Culkin is not as fun to be around as Jamie Kennedy, Marielle Jaffe is certainly no Rose McGowan, and Erik Knudsen is a far cry from Matthew Lillard (though he looks a little like Liev Schreiber). Only Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere have personalities that come across on screen. And, for a movie that pulls together a pretty big ensemble, very few of the characters interact with each other, so it all feels very segmented. (I posit that Allison Brie, though very funny, is wholly unnecessary.) The "satire" was similarly unfocused: sometimes they were talking about rules of "rebooting" a series, other times they talk about the "new rules" that result when audiences become hip to previous conventions, and they don't go far enough into either. I really dug it when the cops were talking about the rules to cop movies, too, but they were obvious and not that in-depth. I think they could've pushed it further-pretty much my thought for the entire movie.
Water for Elephants: C-
It looks gorgeous, it's about a near-broke circus, and there's an elephant in it-what could go wrong, right? Plenty. The bones of something Moulin Rouge-ish are there, but minus all of the sparkle, chemistry, romance, and everything that makes you clutch your heart a little when you watch Moulin Rouge. I generally hate to blame actors because movie failures are rarely every their fault, but the central couple here is so, so miscast. I really gave Robert Pattinson a chance, too, because I don’t think I've ever really seen him get the chance to act. It turns out, he has all of the talent and charisma of an Easter Island head. That's what he looked like to me when he was making his serious face. Reese Witherspoon is 10 years older than him but looks 15 years older than him in the movie, and she doesn't quite pull off the "I’m hot and I know it so I can be cold but really I love you" attitude. Instead, she just comes off as huffy. Let's just say that no one will be rapping about them in any future "Lazy Sunday" sequels. Really, this should've just been about Christoph Waltz and the elephant.
The Greatest Movie Ever Sold: B
This is ostensibly a documentary about product placement, funded by product placement. But really, it doesn't say much other than "product placement exists." The parts that are supposed to explore the topic-looking at a city in Brazil that banned billboards (which isn't really product placement), talking to a school system in Florida that sells ad space on its fence (same)-feels like strange diversions. Even then, no conclusions are drawn other than the obvious one: ads are everywhere. But Morgan Spurlock is just fun to watch. (I was always a fan of 30 Days, which may be the best use of him.) I really enjoyed the parts of the movie that were about his adventures trying to get sponsors: figuring out his "brand" (a process he derides as loony, but the people he consulted with really nailed it), giving weird pitches to off-the-wall companies (Mane 'n' Tail), hearing the responses from the company ad departments, seeing the reciprocal publicity the companies gave the movie (like him giving the JetBlue pre-flight video instructions). Someone called it a "making-of" documentary, and that's pretty apt. Plus, it ends with a song by OK Go. How could I not like it?
Win Win: B
OK OK. It was sweet. It was a tad melodramatic. All of the actors did what they do to make me like them to begin with. The kid was the most natural movie-teen I've seen in a while. But the story isn't really going to stay with me. What I take away from it is that I want to, one day, see a movie with Melanie Lynskey in it where I get to see her smile. (Wait, do they do that in Heavenly Creatures? I haven’t seen it.)
But, since I have a moment,
Oops! I put these first two in my March round-up, but I technically saw them in April. Here they are again to please my OCD.
Insidious: B
This is your standard haunted-house movie, completely with a descent into silliness at the end, but I actually had a really good time with it. Sure, it's by-the-book jump scares exacerbated by loud music stings, but they were effective on me. In other words: I jumped.
Side note: Because it's from the same distributor as Insidious, I saw a trailer for Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. (It's better in the theater.) The trailer is a microcosm of the Insidious experience. It starts off by creating atmosphere mostly through sound. Then it sets events into motion so that you know there's going to be a big scare at the end, but there's nothing you can do about it. Then it delivers the big scare.
I see a lot of horror movies, but I have a hard time keeping my eyes open during that trailer.
Source Code: B+
I love Duncan Jones because he's unapologetic about being a hard-sci-fi guy. Source Code has action, but it's not really an action movie, and there's really the merest hints of romance. Instead, it's mostly about ideas. I don't think that the ideas in this movie were as strong as the ones in Moon. There was a lot of time spent after Source Code going over what happened to figure out the loose ends, and some of those didn't have satisfying conclusions. (I can give details to people who have seen it, but, you know, they're full of spoilers.) I think that broadening the scope of his movie from Moon also made it murkier. But I'm definitely on board to see what he has cooking up next.
New movies:
Your Highness: B-
I'm officially disappointed. Not with the idea: Like Pineapple Express was for '80s action films, Your Highness is a pretty straight-faced cheesy fantasy movie with jokes layered on top. I like that approach, but I don’t think that Your Highness was as good at being a fantasy movie as Pineapple Express was at being an action movie. Things seemed either chopped up or not thought all the way through, and nothing seemed like it was driving the characters from place to place except for the desire to tell jokes about those places. (For me, the low point of the movie was the labyrinth. Sure, jokes about a Minotaur and its member are funny. But how did Danny McBride get away with that sword? Where did Natalie Portman get that pan flute from, and, if she knew it would soothe the minotaur, why didn't she use it the first time she saw it? They all got separated-how did they find each other again? And how did they get out of the labyrinth? These questions matter to me so much that I was distracted from the Minotaur boner.) Maybe I'd be more forgiving if it was funnier. It was funny, but not on the level of something like Anchorman. I want David Gordon Green to follow his passions, but I hope his passions bring him back to making quiet pretty movies soon, because I think he's be better at them. They can be funny, too, as my favorite part of All the Real Girls can attest.
Hanna: A-
I'm learning that I don't care if movies are style-over-substance. If people can enjoy something that features well-rounded characters but no story or visual flourishes, why isn't it okay to make a stylish movie that is colder towards its characters? I like that Hanna seems detached-that's what gives it its fairy-tale quality. And, even then, reports of "you don't care about anyone in it" seem exaggerated to me. Sure, I didn't feel quite so attached to Eric Bana, but I did feel sympathy for Hanna. And I loved, loved, loved Sophie. (That actress is in Tamara Drewe playing a very similar character. One to watch, that Jessica Barden is.) It also manages to have a kickass girl heroine who isn't sexualized in any way, so everyone who complained about Sucker Punch should go see it. If not for the girl power, then for the amazing tracking shots. Then again, maybe I'm just partial to it because it's another movie with a villain named "Marissa."
Henry's Crime: D
There are things I like about this movie a whole lot. Namely, that it was filmed in Tarrytown. Yay, Tarrytown! It's weird to see how much good will that gives me. More positives: Though I have no affection for The Cherry Orchard, they did an interesting job of weaving elements of the play through the movie. And there are a few interesting performances, too; Vera Farmiga is all-around great, James Caan is a lovable coot, and Peter Stormaire brings his space dementia into the theater as a crazy director. I even liked watching Keanu Reeves pretend to be an amateur actor, mellowing his way through Chekov while getting acting advice from everyone on set. But it's that laid-back vibe that ultimately makes the movie really confusing. Keanu is pretty charmless in it, and it's impossible to tell if he's a criminal mastermind, or someone who is just along for the ride. I really wasn't sure how I was supposed to read him at all, and that dragged on the entire movie. I actually wished I could've seen it with a different actor, to see how much of the Keanu blankness was intentional. But, hey, he made a good Lopakhin.
Scream 4: C
I very much enjoyed the cold open and the Big Reveal (which I will not spoil), as well as everything that came after. But the rest just seemed like it was going through the motions. It wasn't as funny as the previous Scream movies, and the characters weren't as vibrant. Rory Culkin is not as fun to be around as Jamie Kennedy, Marielle Jaffe is certainly no Rose McGowan, and Erik Knudsen is a far cry from Matthew Lillard (though he looks a little like Liev Schreiber). Only Emma Roberts and Hayden Panettiere have personalities that come across on screen. And, for a movie that pulls together a pretty big ensemble, very few of the characters interact with each other, so it all feels very segmented. (I posit that Allison Brie, though very funny, is wholly unnecessary.) The "satire" was similarly unfocused: sometimes they were talking about rules of "rebooting" a series, other times they talk about the "new rules" that result when audiences become hip to previous conventions, and they don't go far enough into either. I really dug it when the cops were talking about the rules to cop movies, too, but they were obvious and not that in-depth. I think they could've pushed it further-pretty much my thought for the entire movie.
Water for Elephants: C-
It looks gorgeous, it's about a near-broke circus, and there's an elephant in it-what could go wrong, right? Plenty. The bones of something Moulin Rouge-ish are there, but minus all of the sparkle, chemistry, romance, and everything that makes you clutch your heart a little when you watch Moulin Rouge. I generally hate to blame actors because movie failures are rarely every their fault, but the central couple here is so, so miscast. I really gave Robert Pattinson a chance, too, because I don’t think I've ever really seen him get the chance to act. It turns out, he has all of the talent and charisma of an Easter Island head. That's what he looked like to me when he was making his serious face. Reese Witherspoon is 10 years older than him but looks 15 years older than him in the movie, and she doesn't quite pull off the "I’m hot and I know it so I can be cold but really I love you" attitude. Instead, she just comes off as huffy. Let's just say that no one will be rapping about them in any future "Lazy Sunday" sequels. Really, this should've just been about Christoph Waltz and the elephant.
The Greatest Movie Ever Sold: B
This is ostensibly a documentary about product placement, funded by product placement. But really, it doesn't say much other than "product placement exists." The parts that are supposed to explore the topic-looking at a city in Brazil that banned billboards (which isn't really product placement), talking to a school system in Florida that sells ad space on its fence (same)-feels like strange diversions. Even then, no conclusions are drawn other than the obvious one: ads are everywhere. But Morgan Spurlock is just fun to watch. (I was always a fan of 30 Days, which may be the best use of him.) I really enjoyed the parts of the movie that were about his adventures trying to get sponsors: figuring out his "brand" (a process he derides as loony, but the people he consulted with really nailed it), giving weird pitches to off-the-wall companies (Mane 'n' Tail), hearing the responses from the company ad departments, seeing the reciprocal publicity the companies gave the movie (like him giving the JetBlue pre-flight video instructions). Someone called it a "making-of" documentary, and that's pretty apt. Plus, it ends with a song by OK Go. How could I not like it?
Win Win: B
OK OK. It was sweet. It was a tad melodramatic. All of the actors did what they do to make me like them to begin with. The kid was the most natural movie-teen I've seen in a while. But the story isn't really going to stay with me. What I take away from it is that I want to, one day, see a movie with Melanie Lynskey in it where I get to see her smile. (Wait, do they do that in Heavenly Creatures? I haven’t seen it.)