I’m going to be adding to this post as I see ‘em, so check back if you’re interested
first viewing unless otherwise stated, - seen on video, / internet viewing
The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson): 44
-Oceans 12 (Steven Soderbergh, 2004): 87, lets say sixth viewing
-Shaolin Soccer (Stephen Chow, 2001): 56
-Cellular (David R. Ellis, 20004): 48
PFFR (PFFR, various): ?
-M*A*S*H (Robert Altman, 1970): 84, third viewing
-McCabe & Mrs. Miller (Robert Altman, 1971): 61
-Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975): 57
-California Split (Robert Altman, 1974): 81
-The Long Goodbye (Robert Altman, 1973): 73
The Hangover (Todd Phillips): 41
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Tony Scott): 53
/Sutro (Jeanne Liotta)
-Speed Racer (Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, 2008): 73; second viewing, first since release
Moon (Duncan Jones): 67
$9.99 (Tatia Rosenthal): 68
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Michael Bay): 30
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Back Log, I'm Finally Caught Up!
Up (Peter Docter and Bob Peterson): 71, (Saw this in 2-D) Pretty much everything you heard about this film is true, both good and bad; it’s completely enjoyable, funny, visually superb (better than Monsters vs. Aliens), however there is simplistic characterization, and the the opening montage does belong in a better film. Lets be honest, the is lesser Pixar. Still, hopefully there’s an entire generation of kids out there that will grow up cherishing, be influenced by, and make bonds over these Pixar films the same way I did with older, hand drawn Disney films.
Drag Me To Hell (Sam Raimi): 67, It’s interesting that Raimi’s past films let him get away with gags and gore that would get anyone else laughed out of the theater. Decent film but nothing to get exited over, this is B-Horror after all (which I can see the argument that that’s exactly where it belongs). If you want to see horror that is really trying to scare you check out last years The Strangers (Bertino).
The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson): 44, Starts off good with the brothers first con which is well thought out and funny, touching on issues of children’s social services, class issues/struggles, trust and betrayal, and ends with not necessary a twist but a side plan that emerges from the background reveling the ‘true’ con. So…you would think this would act as a microcosm of the rest of the film but, like me, you would be wrong. It just gets bogged down in woe-is-me angst is my life real or all a fake and I can barely stand that. Also suffers from both quirky girl syndrome (a la Garden State) and the fact that the film doesn’t live up to its own hype. Bloom talks about how his brothers plans are like a Russian novel with attention to detail, embedded symbolism, and whatever else but really everything just enfolds by luck or chance. The characters talk about behavior traits and actions that never materialize in the film. About half way in I was bored, waiting for it to be over. Willing to chalk this up to sophomore slump, Brick was good, what happened?
The Hangover (Todd Phillips): 41, I want to see the film Zach Galifianakis thought he was in, that one looks funny as hell. This one not only mines the same jokes more than once (Zach’s ass shot, baby jerkin it, the tiger) but is under the impression that if dialogue is spoken funny (Chinese guy, wedding chapel guy, Mike Tyson) that it automatically makes it funny. Also takes forever to get going, literally starting over twice. At least some of the sight gags were never explained like the chicken or the smoking chair, and the piano part was cool if only for its unexpectedness.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Tony Scott): 53, Tony Scott’s films are all the same so review goes like this, not as good as Déjà Vu (by a long shot) or Man on Fire but better than Domino (which is a pretty low bar, but whatever). If anything he’s showing restraint which is an improvement. Still not sure what John Travolta’s character was all about, Simple revenge? Just in it for the money? Going to see if I can get my hands on the original.
Coraline (Henry Selick): 70, (Again, 2-D) Up there with Monster House as a film that I’m not sure was meant for kids, (there were two little girls that were actively crying during the screening I went to asking their Moms if they can go home, they all ended up leaving). I thought the stop motion and CGI complimented each other well, neither technique made the other seem out of place. Film itself exactly what you would expect, but unlike Corpse Bride wears a little thin and kind of gets watered down making Coraline complete video game like task, the whole part about going back to the different ‘worlds’ and finding the eyes could have been completely cut out adding only unnecessary length. Oh, by the way, Selick and Focus Features, this is a hand animated stop-motion film, you’re already special!!! You didn’t need to get caught up in this view it 3-D shit.
Fighting (Dito Montiel): 64, Would have totally blown this one off if I didn’t figure out who the director was (if you haven’t, check out A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints). There’s definitely a strong film inside here and I wished we could have spent longer with Harvey and Shawn, the moments where they are together easily strongest parts in the film. Both not only down on their luck characters but carry streaks of never had any and self destructive tendencies respectively. Actual fighting scenes are saved by being blunt, unorganized, and brief. Dialogue is great with everyone talking at once* and constantly, desperately trying to convince others they have a good idea or plan.
*Probably because it’s fresh in my mind, by this film might actually be reminiscent of Altman at his best, but I’m going to need a second viewing to be sure.
[Second Viewing] Ok the Altman line was being extra generous, it does exhibit this semi-improvised/characters that are making it up as they go, but in flashes not in overall tone. Everything else still applys.
Drag Me To Hell (Sam Raimi): 67, It’s interesting that Raimi’s past films let him get away with gags and gore that would get anyone else laughed out of the theater. Decent film but nothing to get exited over, this is B-Horror after all (which I can see the argument that that’s exactly where it belongs). If you want to see horror that is really trying to scare you check out last years The Strangers (Bertino).
The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson): 44, Starts off good with the brothers first con which is well thought out and funny, touching on issues of children’s social services, class issues/struggles, trust and betrayal, and ends with not necessary a twist but a side plan that emerges from the background reveling the ‘true’ con. So…you would think this would act as a microcosm of the rest of the film but, like me, you would be wrong. It just gets bogged down in woe-is-me angst is my life real or all a fake and I can barely stand that. Also suffers from both quirky girl syndrome (a la Garden State) and the fact that the film doesn’t live up to its own hype. Bloom talks about how his brothers plans are like a Russian novel with attention to detail, embedded symbolism, and whatever else but really everything just enfolds by luck or chance. The characters talk about behavior traits and actions that never materialize in the film. About half way in I was bored, waiting for it to be over. Willing to chalk this up to sophomore slump, Brick was good, what happened?
The Hangover (Todd Phillips): 41, I want to see the film Zach Galifianakis thought he was in, that one looks funny as hell. This one not only mines the same jokes more than once (Zach’s ass shot, baby jerkin it, the tiger) but is under the impression that if dialogue is spoken funny (Chinese guy, wedding chapel guy, Mike Tyson) that it automatically makes it funny. Also takes forever to get going, literally starting over twice. At least some of the sight gags were never explained like the chicken or the smoking chair, and the piano part was cool if only for its unexpectedness.
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Tony Scott): 53, Tony Scott’s films are all the same so review goes like this, not as good as Déjà Vu (by a long shot) or Man on Fire but better than Domino (which is a pretty low bar, but whatever). If anything he’s showing restraint which is an improvement. Still not sure what John Travolta’s character was all about, Simple revenge? Just in it for the money? Going to see if I can get my hands on the original.
Coraline (Henry Selick): 70, (Again, 2-D) Up there with Monster House as a film that I’m not sure was meant for kids, (there were two little girls that were actively crying during the screening I went to asking their Moms if they can go home, they all ended up leaving). I thought the stop motion and CGI complimented each other well, neither technique made the other seem out of place. Film itself exactly what you would expect, but unlike Corpse Bride wears a little thin and kind of gets watered down making Coraline complete video game like task, the whole part about going back to the different ‘worlds’ and finding the eyes could have been completely cut out adding only unnecessary length. Oh, by the way, Selick and Focus Features, this is a hand animated stop-motion film, you’re already special!!! You didn’t need to get caught up in this view it 3-D shit.
Fighting (Dito Montiel): 64, Would have totally blown this one off if I didn’t figure out who the director was (if you haven’t, check out A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints). There’s definitely a strong film inside here and I wished we could have spent longer with Harvey and Shawn, the moments where they are together easily strongest parts in the film. Both not only down on their luck characters but carry streaks of never had any and self destructive tendencies respectively. Actual fighting scenes are saved by being blunt, unorganized, and brief. Dialogue is great with everyone talking at once* and constantly, desperately trying to convince others they have a good idea or plan.
*Probably because it’s fresh in my mind, by this film might actually be reminiscent of Altman at his best, but I’m going to need a second viewing to be sure.
[Second Viewing] Ok the Altman line was being extra generous, it does exhibit this semi-improvised/characters that are making it up as they go, but in flashes not in overall tone. Everything else still applys.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Barely Worth Commenting On, But…
Taken (Pierre Morel): 35, Good luck girls, hope your ex-CIA Daddy comes for you too!
Notorious (George Tillman Jr.): 32, Maybe I had overly high expectations for this one, expecting a more in-depth look of the man touching on areas such as lack of opportunity, class struggles, image vs. reality, and carving out a personal identity in the entertainment industry. As it stands the film is really proud of its casting and glosses over everything else. Also, what’s with the high contrast, desaturated look of the streets of Brooklyn? What was wrong with regular film stock?
Fanboys (Kyle Newman): 9, There’s this one scene where our Star Wars fans run into a group of Star Trek fans. Now this could have gone one of two ways; the first way would be to ‘out trivia’ each other using lesser known facts and ultra specific details of each series until one group is ‘proven wrong’ or left speechless, winners taunt the losers relentlessly and so on and so on. The second way, and actual scene in the film, plays like this,
“Vader sucks!”
“Oh yeah, Captain Kirk sucks!”
“No, you suck!”
“You want to fight!”
“Bring it!”,
sloppy fighting ensues, clumsy get away and so on and so on. This entire film goes the second way.
I Love You, Man (John Hamburg): 23, I’m not sure the characters within this film resemble real people. The only reason this is in the low twenties is because of Fevreau.
Notorious (George Tillman Jr.): 32, Maybe I had overly high expectations for this one, expecting a more in-depth look of the man touching on areas such as lack of opportunity, class struggles, image vs. reality, and carving out a personal identity in the entertainment industry. As it stands the film is really proud of its casting and glosses over everything else. Also, what’s with the high contrast, desaturated look of the streets of Brooklyn? What was wrong with regular film stock?
Fanboys (Kyle Newman): 9, There’s this one scene where our Star Wars fans run into a group of Star Trek fans. Now this could have gone one of two ways; the first way would be to ‘out trivia’ each other using lesser known facts and ultra specific details of each series until one group is ‘proven wrong’ or left speechless, winners taunt the losers relentlessly and so on and so on. The second way, and actual scene in the film, plays like this,
“Vader sucks!”
“Oh yeah, Captain Kirk sucks!”
“No, you suck!”
“You want to fight!”
“Bring it!”,
sloppy fighting ensues, clumsy get away and so on and so on. This entire film goes the second way.
I Love You, Man (John Hamburg): 23, I’m not sure the characters within this film resemble real people. The only reason this is in the low twenties is because of Fevreau.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Online Videos Actually Worth Watching
Time Piece (Jim Henson): Pre-Muppets short
{http://en.zappinternet.com/video/baqGsoNwoV/Jim-Hensons-Time-Piece}
this is a moving target; search this, find it, love it
SkateBang (Damon Packard): Kind of a one liner, but still pretty sweet. Play this at maxium volume for full effect.
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg63r0vx9Jo}
Phantoms of Nabua (Apichatpong "Joe" Weerasethakul): I imagine this would be awesome in a theater or gallery setting, but dies a little (or even a lot) on my computer screen. Play this one at night, in a dark room, with all the other lights turned off.
{http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2009/phantoms}
Holy Woods (Cécile Fontaine): One of the few European contemporary avant-garde filmmakers that gets a fair amount of attention here in the States.
{http://www.lightcone.org/en/film-4891-holy-woods.html}
A Christmas Caper (Gary Trousdale): You know those kids films where the side characters are way more interesting and funny than the main ones, and you wished someone would just make a film with them. Well here you go. Takes a minute to load but worth it.
{http://www.guba.com/watch/2000984091}
Sutro (Jeanne Liotta): I just found out about this myself, let me watch it a few times and get back to you. What I do know for sure is that this is not a music video.
{http://www.jeanneliotta.net/filmpages/sutro.html}
{http://en.zappinternet.com/video/baqGsoNwoV/Jim-Hensons-Time-Piece}
this is a moving target; search this, find it, love it
SkateBang (Damon Packard): Kind of a one liner, but still pretty sweet. Play this at maxium volume for full effect.
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg63r0vx9Jo}
Phantoms of Nabua (Apichatpong "Joe" Weerasethakul): I imagine this would be awesome in a theater or gallery setting, but dies a little (or even a lot) on my computer screen. Play this one at night, in a dark room, with all the other lights turned off.
{http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2009/phantoms}
Holy Woods (Cécile Fontaine): One of the few European contemporary avant-garde filmmakers that gets a fair amount of attention here in the States.
{http://www.lightcone.org/en/film-4891-holy-woods.html}
A Christmas Caper (Gary Trousdale): You know those kids films where the side characters are way more interesting and funny than the main ones, and you wished someone would just make a film with them. Well here you go. Takes a minute to load but worth it.
{http://www.guba.com/watch/2000984091}
Sutro (Jeanne Liotta): I just found out about this myself, let me watch it a few times and get back to you. What I do know for sure is that this is not a music video.
{http://www.jeanneliotta.net/filmpages/sutro.html}
Friday, May 29, 2009
Film Reviews
The Girlfriend Experience (Steven Soderbergh): 77, Sasha Grey, real life porn star, is Chelsea, high end call girl, in Soderbergh’s new film. Film centers around Chelsea and her ‘boyfriend’ Chris and is told in an non-chronological order much like The Limey. Even with that, the film fits right along side the Oceans series both in terms of look and politics with Bubble being at the other end of the spectrum. (Enough references for ya! My point is that this is not just some minor work of Soderberg’s, but another exercise in addressing concerns both thematic and formal that he has been working with his entire career.) Soderbergh uses the upper class not only for the visual use of high end apartments, clothing, dinning, and recreation, (which I feel are much more visually rich, interesting, and alien then the urban poor) but also to talk about our current economic state highlighting both the excess and hardships. Sales, service and sex are no longer reliable and within the film there is a reversal of traditional roles. The ‘johns’, esp. her boyfriend, are figuratively pimping themselves out trying to attract different clients, while Chelsea is trying to compete by making contacts, creating a web presence, and responding to negative reviews. Truly, this is what both parties need to do to stay competitive and for advancement, and in the end they both sacrifice what they already had for opportunities that never arrive. Great montage sequences, you get three, but feel effortless like he went into autopilot or something. Apparently this is also OnDemand but I couldn’t find it, I think the release of it came and went which kind of defeats the purpose, right?
Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson): 89, third viewing- first is about four years, Film operates like an album or simply like music and must be seen in one uninterrupted sitting or the rhythm is shot to hell and doesn’t carry the same impact. Anderson creates characters out of backstory and juxtaposition, and intercuts between them not necessary for narrative but emotional purposes with one of the most hypotonic scores I know holding everything together. Perfect execution with every shot, pan, and cut exactly in the right place and a consistently moving camera as well. Still not really sure what it’s ‘about’ and really I don’t care. He touches on some loose themes of trust, part patriarchical abandonment/fall, and the limits of forgiveness. First 90mins are perfect and there’s definitely a rise and fall with the crest right at the half way mark. Would be a hands down masterpiece if it was maybe a little shorter (and we’re only talking like 10mins) and didn’t use incest as the lazy way out. His masterpiece does come later with Punch-Drunk Love.
Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson): 89, third viewing- first is about four years, Film operates like an album or simply like music and must be seen in one uninterrupted sitting or the rhythm is shot to hell and doesn’t carry the same impact. Anderson creates characters out of backstory and juxtaposition, and intercuts between them not necessary for narrative but emotional purposes with one of the most hypotonic scores I know holding everything together. Perfect execution with every shot, pan, and cut exactly in the right place and a consistently moving camera as well. Still not really sure what it’s ‘about’ and really I don’t care. He touches on some loose themes of trust, part patriarchical abandonment/fall, and the limits of forgiveness. First 90mins are perfect and there’s definitely a rise and fall with the crest right at the half way mark. Would be a hands down masterpiece if it was maybe a little shorter (and we’re only talking like 10mins) and didn’t use incest as the lazy way out. His masterpiece does come later with Punch-Drunk Love.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Film Reviews
The Soloist (Joe Wright): 35, The homeless would be better if we just befriended them? Yeah right, the issue is way more complicated then that. The flashback sequences are just painful.
Monsters vs. Aliens (Rob Letterman): 65, (saw this in 2-D) Probably being overly generous but its consistently funny, visually outstanding, and has even an ounce of subtext about personal empowerment and the efficacy of our government and law enforcement. Seth Rogen also has a future as a voice actor.
Star Trek (J.J. Abrams): 68, Having no relation to the original Trek (both shows and films) I’m kind of at a loss about what to say. Solid film and made to look even better surrounded by all the other god awful sci-fi/comic book films out there. Reminded me of the synthetic aesthetic from the firth Resident Evil with the ships interior being all white, polished, and smoove becoming this high key surface that makes all other colors just pop off the screen. Lens flare used a little too much even for my taste, but saves itself with some truly great moments like when Spock is beating up Kirk and the screen is washed over in this white haze with their faces barely visible mirroring the emotional intensity of the moment. Using the old Spock to play an aged Spock was a pretty nice touch even though it proves that it's damn near impossible to separate some actors from characters they used to play.
Adventureland (Greg Mottola): 55, Actually a 67/45 split. Greg Mottola can direct, Martin Starr is never not awesome, Ryan Reynolds for ya, and Adventureland itself is a cool location. But then again basically a guy trying to get laid movie (a virgin at that, ugh), wasted/pointless use to set it in the 80s, and Jesse Eisenberg is no Michael Cera.
Watchmen (Zack Snyder): 42, Starts with the absolute best opening title sequence I’ve seen all year, with the history of the Watchmen told in a purely visual form in the framework of living comic book frames, only to fucken waste it in the next 10mins when the characters quite literally explain everything we just saw. Insulting, yes. Pacing doesn’t work either because unlike a comic book, excuse me graphic novel, or a TV show a film doesn’t just stop and you can feel those necessary punctuations. Like when Rorschach got his mask pulled off and his identity was reveled, big moment right, kind of want a second to take it in, no not here, keep moving forward. So important moments like this are treated with the same significance as say, everything else. Also, couldn’t figure out it they all had super strength or if the violence was just hyper stylized. Did I mention the awesome opening title sequence?
Monsters vs. Aliens (Rob Letterman): 65, (saw this in 2-D) Probably being overly generous but its consistently funny, visually outstanding, and has even an ounce of subtext about personal empowerment and the efficacy of our government and law enforcement. Seth Rogen also has a future as a voice actor.
Star Trek (J.J. Abrams): 68, Having no relation to the original Trek (both shows and films) I’m kind of at a loss about what to say. Solid film and made to look even better surrounded by all the other god awful sci-fi/comic book films out there. Reminded me of the synthetic aesthetic from the firth Resident Evil with the ships interior being all white, polished, and smoove becoming this high key surface that makes all other colors just pop off the screen. Lens flare used a little too much even for my taste, but saves itself with some truly great moments like when Spock is beating up Kirk and the screen is washed over in this white haze with their faces barely visible mirroring the emotional intensity of the moment. Using the old Spock to play an aged Spock was a pretty nice touch even though it proves that it's damn near impossible to separate some actors from characters they used to play.
Adventureland (Greg Mottola): 55, Actually a 67/45 split. Greg Mottola can direct, Martin Starr is never not awesome, Ryan Reynolds for ya, and Adventureland itself is a cool location. But then again basically a guy trying to get laid movie (a virgin at that, ugh), wasted/pointless use to set it in the 80s, and Jesse Eisenberg is no Michael Cera.
Watchmen (Zack Snyder): 42, Starts with the absolute best opening title sequence I’ve seen all year, with the history of the Watchmen told in a purely visual form in the framework of living comic book frames, only to fucken waste it in the next 10mins when the characters quite literally explain everything we just saw. Insulting, yes. Pacing doesn’t work either because unlike a comic book, excuse me graphic novel, or a TV show a film doesn’t just stop and you can feel those necessary punctuations. Like when Rorschach got his mask pulled off and his identity was reveled, big moment right, kind of want a second to take it in, no not here, keep moving forward. So important moments like this are treated with the same significance as say, everything else. Also, couldn’t figure out it they all had super strength or if the violence was just hyper stylized. Did I mention the awesome opening title sequence?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Film Reviews
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Gavin Hood): 20, What can I say, the movie was just bad. Opening title sequence fell completely flat, every piece of dialogue was plot driven, the CGI wasn’t even that good, everything looked like a cheap set, every character was wasted (including the title character), and the list goes on but I’m not going to spend longer on this then they obviously spent making it. Oh, they let Ryan Reynolds be Ryan Reynolds but I understand I’m wwwaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy in the minority on that one.
Earth (Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield): 50, Just a greatest hits of the BBC show Planet Earth, but that didn’t bother me since I haven’t seen any episodes anyways (which makes one think how it will do on DVD when you can just rent/buy the original). Nice try on not one but two global warming warnings. Standouts were slow-mo of cheetah catching its prey, the jumping shark, and any establishing shot.
Resident Evil: Extinction (Russel Mulcahy): 58, Three reasons why this is worth your time, 1. This might only apply to people who play video games but the pacing between action sequences and exposition is exactly right, ex. right before Alice is going to fight the ‘final boss’ the little hologram girl spells out all the unanswered questions about Alice’s identity and gives her final motivation to defeat her enemy. Classic RPG 2. Having the film set in mo-mans-land America is pretty good. Points to the fact that human life is scarce and civilization is more or less lost, but having the deserted gradually being buried under sand Las Vegas raises the bar. With all of Vegas’ fake geographical landmarks (the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, pyramids, etc.) really pushes this idea that the entire world over is destroyed, and in a weird way this is the center of it right now. 3. At 95mins you don’t get overloaded with action movie bang!, the perfect run time.
Terminator Salvation (McG): 44, John Connor moves to the background both in terms of screen time and position, in Salvation he is made out to be just some upper level soldier. Bale basically just collecting a paycheck with nothing to do but shout occasional dialogue and look fierce. Marcus (Worthington) is the star of this thing also getting the only good action sequence, starting from the 7-11 outpost and ending with him in the river, in the film. But above all that, the film itself is unsatisfying. It makes it out that all they need to do is take out the SF base and the humans win, then at the very end a voice-over comes on a says that the problem is still global and in need of sequels. Remember when films were singular and still part of a series, (Rocky, Back to the Furture, Indiana Jones, hell even the Harry Potters and the new Batmans can do this) that was nice. Speaking of series, why the fuck did Fox cancel The Sarah Connor Chronicles!?! It was one of the few shows working with complex temporal structures and personal internal conflict moving the story forward rather than just some baddie of the week. Why does every show I follow get cancelled?
Earth (Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield): 50, Just a greatest hits of the BBC show Planet Earth, but that didn’t bother me since I haven’t seen any episodes anyways (which makes one think how it will do on DVD when you can just rent/buy the original). Nice try on not one but two global warming warnings. Standouts were slow-mo of cheetah catching its prey, the jumping shark, and any establishing shot.
Resident Evil: Extinction (Russel Mulcahy): 58, Three reasons why this is worth your time, 1. This might only apply to people who play video games but the pacing between action sequences and exposition is exactly right, ex. right before Alice is going to fight the ‘final boss’ the little hologram girl spells out all the unanswered questions about Alice’s identity and gives her final motivation to defeat her enemy. Classic RPG 2. Having the film set in mo-mans-land America is pretty good. Points to the fact that human life is scarce and civilization is more or less lost, but having the deserted gradually being buried under sand Las Vegas raises the bar. With all of Vegas’ fake geographical landmarks (the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, pyramids, etc.) really pushes this idea that the entire world over is destroyed, and in a weird way this is the center of it right now. 3. At 95mins you don’t get overloaded with action movie bang!, the perfect run time.
Terminator Salvation (McG): 44, John Connor moves to the background both in terms of screen time and position, in Salvation he is made out to be just some upper level soldier. Bale basically just collecting a paycheck with nothing to do but shout occasional dialogue and look fierce. Marcus (Worthington) is the star of this thing also getting the only good action sequence, starting from the 7-11 outpost and ending with him in the river, in the film. But above all that, the film itself is unsatisfying. It makes it out that all they need to do is take out the SF base and the humans win, then at the very end a voice-over comes on a says that the problem is still global and in need of sequels. Remember when films were singular and still part of a series, (Rocky, Back to the Furture, Indiana Jones, hell even the Harry Potters and the new Batmans can do this) that was nice. Speaking of series, why the fuck did Fox cancel The Sarah Connor Chronicles!?! It was one of the few shows working with complex temporal structures and personal internal conflict moving the story forward rather than just some baddie of the week. Why does every show I follow get cancelled?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
