Intruder seems to mainly be famous these days because it features Sam Raimi in a small role and Bruce Campbell in a barely existing role. That's how I heard of it, anyway.
It's about the night crew at a supermarket. Cashier Jennifer is being harrassed by her ex boyfriend who was recently released from jail. Then the crew finds out that the store is being sold and they'll all be out of a job by the end of the month.
Then somebody starts killing off members of the night crew one by one. Hilarity ensues. (It's not laugh out loud funny, but there are a couple good gags; a sign that says "1/2 Off" sitting on top of a guy who's been cut in half and shoved into two trash cans, for instance.)
It takes about half an hour to start getting to the gory bits, but at no point was I bored by the set up. It's not as bloody as I expected it to be (I'd heard somewhere the blood was copius but it seemed to me to be pretty average '80s slasher amounts of blood; it's quite likely Netflix only has the R rated cut, in which case I'm just missing out) but I still had a good time watching it.
The killer (once their identity was revealed) was pretty entertaining in all their crazy and the only thing about the movie I didn't like was the very last scene. It was too unnecessarily frustrating and downbeat for my taste. I think it was supposed to come off as funny (maybe?) but it doesn't work and it doesn't really fit the tone of the rest of the movie.
Other than that, though, nothing but compliments. I really enjoyed Intruder. And I would like to point out that one of the jump scares totally got me. Not because I wasn't expecting it but because I was so busy looking at all the old cereal boxes in the background. (The movie was filmed in an actual supermarket during its off hours so the backgrounds are full of glorious old product packaging. If you're as much a sucker for that kind of thing as I am, this movie's got more impressive scenery than Lord Of The Rings.)
End of line.
-Sally
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Gypsy And The Gentleman
This is one of the boringer Patrick McGoohan movies I've had to sit through. It's got a long, confusing plot wherein characters are constantly changing their alliances to each other.
First, there's a gypsy girl named Belle who lives a life prancing about fields and being all cuddly with a guy named Jess (who may or may not also be a gypsy; I'm still not clear on that) until she steals the purse of the titular "gentleman" (who gets his title in quotes because he's an asshole), Sir Paul Deveraux. Sir Paul saves her from the mob of angry people who want to kill her because she stole the man's purse by claiming that she didn't steal his purse. Later that night Belle abandons Jess because it's raining and hitches a ride in Sir Paul's carriage. Belle and Paul start shacking up (at one point Belle runs back to the forest to Jess for a couple days, but she ends up going back to Paul and no mention is ever really made of that again).
Meanwhile, Paul is engaged to a chick named Vanessa and Paul's sister Sarah wants to marry a doctor named John (I think?). Paul insists that Sarah can't marry John because his stature is too lowly. Then he marries Belle. Yeah.
Sarah informs Belle that Paul is broke, most of the staff quits and Jess gets a job taking care of their horses. Then Paul and Sarah's aunt dies and leaves Sarah her entire fortune as long as she marries before she turns twenty one. Belle, the aunt's lawyer, Jess and a somewhat reluctant Paul decide to tell Sarah the will says she'll get the fortune if she marries after she turns twenty one so Paul and Belle will get the fortune (why the lawyer's so gung ho on this deception is never explained, seeing as he wouldn't actually get anything out of it).
And the rest of the plot revolves around keeping Sarah locked up so Belle and Paul can get the aunt's fortune. And it goes on and on. And on. Aaaaand on. Paul has a couple changes of heart, Belle makes out with any guy unfortunate enough to get his face near hers, Jess spends the second half of the movie being a full on villain even though I'm pretty sure he wasn't one at the start of the film (he gets a cape and hat around the time he starts working for Sir Paul; I guess you have to do a heel turn when you get a cape and hat) and Sarah hopes desperately to be saved by her fiance and his friend, the famous actress whose hair never turns gray no matter how old she gets (it's known as "The Legend").
I didn't like the movie while I was watching it but in hindsight it was kind of entertaining, in an "I have no idea what the fuck is going on" kind of way. Nobody enunciates (especially not Belle) and I'm pretty sure every character makes the choices they make depending on what would be most dramatic at any given time. Also, Patrick McGoohan looks like this:
Never before or since was he so swarthy.
End of line.
-Sally
First, there's a gypsy girl named Belle who lives a life prancing about fields and being all cuddly with a guy named Jess (who may or may not also be a gypsy; I'm still not clear on that) until she steals the purse of the titular "gentleman" (who gets his title in quotes because he's an asshole), Sir Paul Deveraux. Sir Paul saves her from the mob of angry people who want to kill her because she stole the man's purse by claiming that she didn't steal his purse. Later that night Belle abandons Jess because it's raining and hitches a ride in Sir Paul's carriage. Belle and Paul start shacking up (at one point Belle runs back to the forest to Jess for a couple days, but she ends up going back to Paul and no mention is ever really made of that again).
Meanwhile, Paul is engaged to a chick named Vanessa and Paul's sister Sarah wants to marry a doctor named John (I think?). Paul insists that Sarah can't marry John because his stature is too lowly. Then he marries Belle. Yeah.
Sarah informs Belle that Paul is broke, most of the staff quits and Jess gets a job taking care of their horses. Then Paul and Sarah's aunt dies and leaves Sarah her entire fortune as long as she marries before she turns twenty one. Belle, the aunt's lawyer, Jess and a somewhat reluctant Paul decide to tell Sarah the will says she'll get the fortune if she marries after she turns twenty one so Paul and Belle will get the fortune (why the lawyer's so gung ho on this deception is never explained, seeing as he wouldn't actually get anything out of it).
And the rest of the plot revolves around keeping Sarah locked up so Belle and Paul can get the aunt's fortune. And it goes on and on. And on. Aaaaand on. Paul has a couple changes of heart, Belle makes out with any guy unfortunate enough to get his face near hers, Jess spends the second half of the movie being a full on villain even though I'm pretty sure he wasn't one at the start of the film (he gets a cape and hat around the time he starts working for Sir Paul; I guess you have to do a heel turn when you get a cape and hat) and Sarah hopes desperately to be saved by her fiance and his friend, the famous actress whose hair never turns gray no matter how old she gets (it's known as "The Legend").
I didn't like the movie while I was watching it but in hindsight it was kind of entertaining, in an "I have no idea what the fuck is going on" kind of way. Nobody enunciates (especially not Belle) and I'm pretty sure every character makes the choices they make depending on what would be most dramatic at any given time. Also, Patrick McGoohan looks like this:
Never before or since was he so swarthy.
End of line.
-Sally
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Continuation Of Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Well, I was right. I liked it way better the second time.
However, I disliked the mermaid romance and the Penelope Cruz twice as much the second time around, so that's still a big problem for me.
'Cause the thing is, in both cases, the movie doesn't give the audience a reason to fucking care. At all. "Oh, okay, I guess the religious guy and the mermaid are in love with each other now. Neither of them has really had any character development at all and they've barely said two words to each other, but I guess I'm supposed to give a damn for some reason?"
As for Angelica, we don't really know anything about her or her reasons for doing what she's doing. But some events happen that cause her life to hang in the balance (it's an action movie, after all; the token chick needs to be put in some peril or another) and I genuinely believe the audience is supposed to care whether or not she survives. We don't care because she's shrill and irritating and useless, but I think we're supposed to care and that sucks.
On the opposite end of the spectrum we have The Spaniard (that's how he's credited), commander of the Spanish fleet, who barely has any screentime but by the end of the movie we know exactly what his motives are and how they dictate his actions, we know that he is a royal badass and, I at least, want to see a whole movie about him. He's not shrill or annoying, he's a dude with a job to do. He's barely in the movie at all but he is one of my favorite new characters.
Him, the crew of the Queen Anne's Revenge and all the evil mermaids.
But not Serena. She can bite me.
End of line.
-Sally
However, I disliked the mermaid romance and the Penelope Cruz twice as much the second time around, so that's still a big problem for me.
'Cause the thing is, in both cases, the movie doesn't give the audience a reason to fucking care. At all. "Oh, okay, I guess the religious guy and the mermaid are in love with each other now. Neither of them has really had any character development at all and they've barely said two words to each other, but I guess I'm supposed to give a damn for some reason?"
As for Angelica, we don't really know anything about her or her reasons for doing what she's doing. But some events happen that cause her life to hang in the balance (it's an action movie, after all; the token chick needs to be put in some peril or another) and I genuinely believe the audience is supposed to care whether or not she survives. We don't care because she's shrill and irritating and useless, but I think we're supposed to care and that sucks.
On the opposite end of the spectrum we have The Spaniard (that's how he's credited), commander of the Spanish fleet, who barely has any screentime but by the end of the movie we know exactly what his motives are and how they dictate his actions, we know that he is a royal badass and, I at least, want to see a whole movie about him. He's not shrill or annoying, he's a dude with a job to do. He's barely in the movie at all but he is one of my favorite new characters.
Him, the crew of the Queen Anne's Revenge and all the evil mermaids.
But not Serena. She can bite me.
End of line.
-Sally
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
It was good. I liked it.
It's also the first of the Pirates movies that I left the theater not feeling enthusiastic about at all, so I guess it's the worst of the four. Parts of it were good; overall it was a lot of fun, if a bit disjointed. It doesn't fit together as well as the first three did.
Barbossa was awesome (but not in it nearly enough; same goes for Gibbs) and Jack Sparrow was his usual fun, twitchy self. There was no Will Turner angsting around and getting on my nerves and it was really nice that the three characters I really cared about seeing were the three that came back for this movie.
As for newcomers there's Blackbeard, who's a darn fine villain, a crew member named Scrum who is rather endearing and adorable and, of course, the two factors that damn near ruined the movie for me (both of which I knew about beforehand and should have been more prepared):
1) the half-assed romance subplot between a missionary named Philip and a mermaid who he claims is named Serena even though she never tells him that's what her name is. I guess I didn't officially know about this one, but I did see a poster for the movie of a mermaid clinging to some bland looking man that, honestly, if it hadn't said "Pirates Of The Caribbean" on it, I would have thought was a poster for a particularly corny romance novel. I guess the filmmakers decided since Will and Elizabeth weren't in this one we had to have a dull romantic subplot from someone. 'Cause, you know, audiences go to pirate movies for the romance and not, oh, I don't know, to see some fucking pirates! (Eyeroll.) Oh well. At least this was practically a nonentity in the movie. My next complaint however...
2) Penelope Cruz. Not her character, Angelica, but Penelope Cruz is the biggest problem with this movie. 'Cause if a different actress had played her, I might not have hated her. But I have a serious problem with Penelope Cruz. Sure, she's very pretty and maybe in Spanish language movies she might even be a good actress (in fact, the two times in the movie she's yelling at Jack in Spanish are the two times she doesn't annoy me). But I've never seen her in a Spanish language movie. I've only seen her in English language movies and in those she's sailing by on looks alone and it's not enough. In every movie I've seen her in her performances are flat and the only emotions she ever manages to convey are "I'm sexy" and "I think I'm acting." So, yes, she made a very good looking (if a bit too clean) pirate, but she didn't make an effective or believeable one.
Considering the first three movies have strong female characters (Anamaria, Elizabeth and Tia Dalma) but also got talented actresses to back up the characters (Zoe Saldana, Keira Knightley and Naomie Harris) and make them likeable and believeable, it's disappointing that they'd drop the ball so completely in casting Angelica.
Overall, if you ignore her (or, at least, if I ignore her), it was a good movie. It was fun, if a bit more serious than its prececessors. It had long stretches of not-so-interesting bits. And it needed a whole lot more Barbossa and Gibbs, and infinitely less of Penelope Cruz. I'd even let the stupid mermaid romance slide if they'd recast Angelica.
Oh, I would like to say, though, that it was awesome that they decided to go with evil, violent mermaids. Evil, violent mermaids are so much cooler than how most of modern pop culture interprets mermaids.
So, in spite of the fact that the first three Pirates movies have Will Turner, I did like them better than the fourth one. Which is kinda sad; I was thrilled at the prospect of a Will-less movie.
Much like how I felt about the second one, though, I'll probably like this one better if I see it again. There are some ass kicking action scenes and now that I know what to expect overall, I can just kick back and enjoy it next time around.
I hope.
End of line.
-Sally
It's also the first of the Pirates movies that I left the theater not feeling enthusiastic about at all, so I guess it's the worst of the four. Parts of it were good; overall it was a lot of fun, if a bit disjointed. It doesn't fit together as well as the first three did.
Barbossa was awesome (but not in it nearly enough; same goes for Gibbs) and Jack Sparrow was his usual fun, twitchy self. There was no Will Turner angsting around and getting on my nerves and it was really nice that the three characters I really cared about seeing were the three that came back for this movie.
As for newcomers there's Blackbeard, who's a darn fine villain, a crew member named Scrum who is rather endearing and adorable and, of course, the two factors that damn near ruined the movie for me (both of which I knew about beforehand and should have been more prepared):
1) the half-assed romance subplot between a missionary named Philip and a mermaid who he claims is named Serena even though she never tells him that's what her name is. I guess I didn't officially know about this one, but I did see a poster for the movie of a mermaid clinging to some bland looking man that, honestly, if it hadn't said "Pirates Of The Caribbean" on it, I would have thought was a poster for a particularly corny romance novel. I guess the filmmakers decided since Will and Elizabeth weren't in this one we had to have a dull romantic subplot from someone. 'Cause, you know, audiences go to pirate movies for the romance and not, oh, I don't know, to see some fucking pirates! (Eyeroll.) Oh well. At least this was practically a nonentity in the movie. My next complaint however...
2) Penelope Cruz. Not her character, Angelica, but Penelope Cruz is the biggest problem with this movie. 'Cause if a different actress had played her, I might not have hated her. But I have a serious problem with Penelope Cruz. Sure, she's very pretty and maybe in Spanish language movies she might even be a good actress (in fact, the two times in the movie she's yelling at Jack in Spanish are the two times she doesn't annoy me). But I've never seen her in a Spanish language movie. I've only seen her in English language movies and in those she's sailing by on looks alone and it's not enough. In every movie I've seen her in her performances are flat and the only emotions she ever manages to convey are "I'm sexy" and "I think I'm acting." So, yes, she made a very good looking (if a bit too clean) pirate, but she didn't make an effective or believeable one.
Considering the first three movies have strong female characters (Anamaria, Elizabeth and Tia Dalma) but also got talented actresses to back up the characters (Zoe Saldana, Keira Knightley and Naomie Harris) and make them likeable and believeable, it's disappointing that they'd drop the ball so completely in casting Angelica.
Overall, if you ignore her (or, at least, if I ignore her), it was a good movie. It was fun, if a bit more serious than its prececessors. It had long stretches of not-so-interesting bits. And it needed a whole lot more Barbossa and Gibbs, and infinitely less of Penelope Cruz. I'd even let the stupid mermaid romance slide if they'd recast Angelica.
Oh, I would like to say, though, that it was awesome that they decided to go with evil, violent mermaids. Evil, violent mermaids are so much cooler than how most of modern pop culture interprets mermaids.
So, in spite of the fact that the first three Pirates movies have Will Turner, I did like them better than the fourth one. Which is kinda sad; I was thrilled at the prospect of a Will-less movie.
Much like how I felt about the second one, though, I'll probably like this one better if I see it again. There are some ass kicking action scenes and now that I know what to expect overall, I can just kick back and enjoy it next time around.
I hope.
End of line.
-Sally
Monday, May 16, 2011
Young Sherlock Holmes
First, I have to admit that I have seen Young Sherlock Holmes before. Usually I reserve my reviews for movies I haven't seen but I figured for this one I'll make an exception because the last time I saw Young Sherlock Holmes was more than twenty years ago and my only memories of the movie were a living stained glass window and a hallucination about pastries that scarred me for life. (Sincerely. When I could tell it was coming my eyes teared up.)
Interesting that it turned up in Movie Lottery 3D now, when I've been watching the recent BBC series Sherlock with Ivy. Coincidentally, Young Sherlock Holmes also features Nigel Stock as Rufus Waxflatter; not twenty minutes before I turned on the movie my mom and I finished watching my least favorite episode of The Prisoner, Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling, which stars Nigel Stock as Number Six.
Anyway, on to actually reviewing the movie:
I liked it.
The end.
No, no, okay, fine, not the end. I just don't know what to say. I can't say much without giving things away. The movie opens with a pretty awesome and disturbing setpiece about a guy being attacked by his dinner and bedroom. It then moves on to show Sherlock Holmes and John Watson meeting at school and becoming friends. Sherlock has a love interest named Elizabeth whose wacky uncle Rufus is trying to build a flying machine.
And that's all I'm going to tell you. I think Young Sherlock Holmes is really worth seeing and, by golly, I'm not going to give away any plot points. It's got a really cool mystery, exciting action sequences and some truly disturbing hallucination scenes (like the one about the pastries). The plot goes some places I didn't expect it to go and I'd seen the damn thing before! (Nevermind that I was about five years old at the time, I thought I'd have had vague recollections but almost the entire movie was new to me.)
I'd also like to say how much I liked the fact that it didn't seem gimmicky. I feel like the problem with taking famous characters and giving them a "young self" version is that it can easily seem to be trying too hard or ... I don't know the right words for what I want to express. It's just something that can easily be screwed up. But in this case it wasn't. It was a Sherlock Holmes story that just happened to take place when Holmes was a teenager. And it was well written, well acted and incredibly entertaining.
And, as when I was five, the kid who played Holmes still looks like Julien Lennon to me.
End of line.
-Sally
Interesting that it turned up in Movie Lottery 3D now, when I've been watching the recent BBC series Sherlock with Ivy. Coincidentally, Young Sherlock Holmes also features Nigel Stock as Rufus Waxflatter; not twenty minutes before I turned on the movie my mom and I finished watching my least favorite episode of The Prisoner, Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling, which stars Nigel Stock as Number Six.
Anyway, on to actually reviewing the movie:
I liked it.
The end.
No, no, okay, fine, not the end. I just don't know what to say. I can't say much without giving things away. The movie opens with a pretty awesome and disturbing setpiece about a guy being attacked by his dinner and bedroom. It then moves on to show Sherlock Holmes and John Watson meeting at school and becoming friends. Sherlock has a love interest named Elizabeth whose wacky uncle Rufus is trying to build a flying machine.
And that's all I'm going to tell you. I think Young Sherlock Holmes is really worth seeing and, by golly, I'm not going to give away any plot points. It's got a really cool mystery, exciting action sequences and some truly disturbing hallucination scenes (like the one about the pastries). The plot goes some places I didn't expect it to go and I'd seen the damn thing before! (Nevermind that I was about five years old at the time, I thought I'd have had vague recollections but almost the entire movie was new to me.)
I'd also like to say how much I liked the fact that it didn't seem gimmicky. I feel like the problem with taking famous characters and giving them a "young self" version is that it can easily seem to be trying too hard or ... I don't know the right words for what I want to express. It's just something that can easily be screwed up. But in this case it wasn't. It was a Sherlock Holmes story that just happened to take place when Holmes was a teenager. And it was well written, well acted and incredibly entertaining.
And, as when I was five, the kid who played Holmes still looks like Julien Lennon to me.
End of line.
-Sally
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Phantom
The Nostalgia Critic reviewed The Phantom a few months ago, and if you want to go watch the video, I recommend it. It's very funny. One of the things I really like about Nostalgia Critic is that he can make me laugh even when I don't agree with what he says. 'Cause I didn't really agree with his review. He spent most of it nitpicking the logic of the movie and making fun of The Phantom's bright purple costume (and he completely ignored the fact that Patrick McGoohan was in the movie at all, an oversight that annoyed me even when I wasn't smack in the middle of a McGoohan phase. He did focus a lot on the fact that Catherine Zeta-Jones is in the movie, though, which is probably the Nostalgia Critic equivalent of me focusing on the Patrick McGoohan aspect).
I loved The Phantom. It's a fun, silly action movie with an affably evil villain, Billy Zane before he shaved his head and started getting cast as bad guys, ancient magic, a lot of chase scenes and some explosions. The first and last voice you hear in the movie is Patrick McGoohan's (a definite plus!) and, probably most refreshing, it's not a modern comic book action movie. Especially since The Phantom was a comic strip. But the comparison still stands!
Yeah, I love the Iron Man movies and the Pirates Of The Caribbean movies (not based on a comic book, but I'm including them anyway. I know it's "uncool" of me, but I'm really looking forward to On Stranger Tides. Five more days!) and if they released a cut of The Dark Knight that consisted solely of Gary Oldman's and Heath Ledger's scenes I'd totally buy it. But I have had a problem with action movies lately. They're all trying too hard to either be serious or over the top.
A lot of action movies these days are all about one-upping the action movies of those days. Everything's bigger and violenter and louder. Fight scenes are often incomprehensible (regardless of what editors think, movies are more exciting when the audience can actually tell what's going on), chase scenes go on so long they become boring and everything is extreme! Wanted had that whole "bullet bending" thing, Live Free Or Die Hard exploded a helicopter with a car, the most recent Indiana Jones was about aliens for some stupid reason, Rambo killed a million billion people (or at least a few dozen) with a giant machine gun mounted on a car and in general action movies aren't content to just be action movies anymore. They have to have at least one setpiece that is bigger and greater than any other setpiece in any movie ever, and they have to do it while cramming a bunch of obnoxious CGI down our throats. It's annoying.
I will point out that it's hypocritical of me to complain about over the top action movies, though, seeing as I own and love both Crank movies and Shoot 'Em Up. But it was refreshing to watch something as fun and goofy and innocent as The Phantom.
What's more refreshing was that every character really seemed to be having a good time. The Phantom loved running around and fighting bad guys while wearing a silly purple costume, just as the bad guy loved talking about his evil plans, having an evil 1930s mustache and ordering cronies to do his dirty work. Billy Zane never seems to stop smiling through the whole movie; this is a superhero who loves what he does.
And that is awesome.
I'm sick of "darker and edgier" superhero movies. I know everybody thinks it's cinematic brilliance, but Christopher Nolan's Batman movies can fucking bite me. I don't want to hear about Bruce Wayne's inner struggles! I want to see good guys beat up bad guys!
Nobody cares about that anymore. Everything has to be character driven, and the characters driving have to be murky and angsty and filled with turmoil. It's bullshit and I'm over it.
No more, I say! The time to hesitate is through. I call for a simpler time in moviedom when action movies are full of action, chatty villains, mild cursing and heroes who are totally cool with the fact that they're heroes.
Batman and his angst can go to Bat-Hell. Spiderman and his turmoil will be squished by my giant newspaper of fun action movies. That new Superman movie they're planning is also probably going to have some sort of seriousness that makes Superman brood, so let's just bury the whole thing right now in a Kryptonite grave of true entertainment.
I demand more movies like The Phantom!
End of line.
-Sally
I loved The Phantom. It's a fun, silly action movie with an affably evil villain, Billy Zane before he shaved his head and started getting cast as bad guys, ancient magic, a lot of chase scenes and some explosions. The first and last voice you hear in the movie is Patrick McGoohan's (a definite plus!) and, probably most refreshing, it's not a modern comic book action movie. Especially since The Phantom was a comic strip. But the comparison still stands!
Yeah, I love the Iron Man movies and the Pirates Of The Caribbean movies (not based on a comic book, but I'm including them anyway. I know it's "uncool" of me, but I'm really looking forward to On Stranger Tides. Five more days!) and if they released a cut of The Dark Knight that consisted solely of Gary Oldman's and Heath Ledger's scenes I'd totally buy it. But I have had a problem with action movies lately. They're all trying too hard to either be serious or over the top.
A lot of action movies these days are all about one-upping the action movies of those days. Everything's bigger and violenter and louder. Fight scenes are often incomprehensible (regardless of what editors think, movies are more exciting when the audience can actually tell what's going on), chase scenes go on so long they become boring and everything is extreme! Wanted had that whole "bullet bending" thing, Live Free Or Die Hard exploded a helicopter with a car, the most recent Indiana Jones was about aliens for some stupid reason, Rambo killed a million billion people (or at least a few dozen) with a giant machine gun mounted on a car and in general action movies aren't content to just be action movies anymore. They have to have at least one setpiece that is bigger and greater than any other setpiece in any movie ever, and they have to do it while cramming a bunch of obnoxious CGI down our throats. It's annoying.
I will point out that it's hypocritical of me to complain about over the top action movies, though, seeing as I own and love both Crank movies and Shoot 'Em Up. But it was refreshing to watch something as fun and goofy and innocent as The Phantom.
What's more refreshing was that every character really seemed to be having a good time. The Phantom loved running around and fighting bad guys while wearing a silly purple costume, just as the bad guy loved talking about his evil plans, having an evil 1930s mustache and ordering cronies to do his dirty work. Billy Zane never seems to stop smiling through the whole movie; this is a superhero who loves what he does.
And that is awesome.
I'm sick of "darker and edgier" superhero movies. I know everybody thinks it's cinematic brilliance, but Christopher Nolan's Batman movies can fucking bite me. I don't want to hear about Bruce Wayne's inner struggles! I want to see good guys beat up bad guys!
Nobody cares about that anymore. Everything has to be character driven, and the characters driving have to be murky and angsty and filled with turmoil. It's bullshit and I'm over it.
No more, I say! The time to hesitate is through. I call for a simpler time in moviedom when action movies are full of action, chatty villains, mild cursing and heroes who are totally cool with the fact that they're heroes.
Batman and his angst can go to Bat-Hell. Spiderman and his turmoil will be squished by my giant newspaper of fun action movies. That new Superman movie they're planning is also probably going to have some sort of seriousness that makes Superman brood, so let's just bury the whole thing right now in a Kryptonite grave of true entertainment.
I demand more movies like The Phantom!
End of line.
-Sally
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Two Living, One Dead
This movie is infuriating! ... Gaaahh!!
Here's the setup:
One evening three men are closing up shop at the post office. One of them (Eric) is in the back room counting money and the other two (Anderson and John) are in the front doing who knows what because the camera is in the back room with the money-counter. Some noise comes from the front room and when Eric goes to see what the ruckus is about, he finds a robber pointing a gun at him. "Hey," says the robber, "give me that money you've been counting." So, like anybody who doesn't want to die, Eric hands over the money and, when the robbers leave, runs to get help for Anderson and John, who have both been injured. Anderson survives with a bonk on the head and John becomes the titular One Dead.
"Well," says everyone in town "Obviously Anderson's a hero for having a concussion and John's a hero for being dead. But Eric's a coward with no sense of loyalty so we have free reign to make his life hell."
Anderson is given praise, money and the promotion that was meant for Eric.
Eric is given a whole lot of mean things said about him. Also the kids at school treat his son like crap and his wife, who for about ten minutes was very happy Eric lived, decides she's with the townspeople and that promotion was more important than her husband's survival and turns into both a hysterical bitch and my least favorite character. (Seriously, if Eric won't shout at her, I will.)
In fact, the only people in town who still treat Eric like a human being are the wife of the guy who died and a man (Rogers) who lives in a boarding house with Anderson, who thinks Anderson is being a royally pompous ass about the whole "hero" thing.
Eric and Rogers become friends, giving each other advice for "friends of theirs," one of whom was the coward in the post office robbery, the other has a badly hurt brother in the hospital.
Two Living, One Dead actually becomes far less infuriating once Eric and Rogers start hanging out. The scenes between them are probably the best in the movie, and there's a scene where Rogers tells off Anderson for being a pompous ass that's very satisfying. (Although I think that happens before he meets Eric.)
In another scene Rogers kind of tells off Eric's wife for being a hysterical bitch, which was somewhat satisfying. (It would have been more satisfying if I could have climbed into the television and slapped her, but that technology doesn't exist yet.)
Overall it was a good movie in the sense that it was engaging and the main character is likeable, even if he is rather mousey and doormatly. It was just really hard to get through the first half when everybody is giving him shit for not getting himself shot.
'Cause here's the thing: I have always heard that proper protocol in a robbery is to do what the robbers say, especially if they're armed, and then get help afterwards. The reason for this is to avoid as much injury and death as possible. So why the hell is an entire town mad at this guy for doing things properly and for wanting to stay alive in order to provide for his family? "Oh you're not brave and stupid and dead, so you suck." No, he doesn't. He's smart.
Admittedly, if the robbers had messed with pretty much any other character Patrick McGoohan ever played they would've gotten punched in the face because fuck them, but he wasn't in that kind of movie. And, honestly, it was really cool to see him play someone rather mousey and doormatly.
It was just a hard movie to watch because I really, really didn't understand why everybody in town treated Eric the way they did.
End of line.
-Sally
Here's the setup:
One evening three men are closing up shop at the post office. One of them (Eric) is in the back room counting money and the other two (Anderson and John) are in the front doing who knows what because the camera is in the back room with the money-counter. Some noise comes from the front room and when Eric goes to see what the ruckus is about, he finds a robber pointing a gun at him. "Hey," says the robber, "give me that money you've been counting." So, like anybody who doesn't want to die, Eric hands over the money and, when the robbers leave, runs to get help for Anderson and John, who have both been injured. Anderson survives with a bonk on the head and John becomes the titular One Dead.
"Well," says everyone in town "Obviously Anderson's a hero for having a concussion and John's a hero for being dead. But Eric's a coward with no sense of loyalty so we have free reign to make his life hell."
Anderson is given praise, money and the promotion that was meant for Eric.
Eric is given a whole lot of mean things said about him. Also the kids at school treat his son like crap and his wife, who for about ten minutes was very happy Eric lived, decides she's with the townspeople and that promotion was more important than her husband's survival and turns into both a hysterical bitch and my least favorite character. (Seriously, if Eric won't shout at her, I will.)
In fact, the only people in town who still treat Eric like a human being are the wife of the guy who died and a man (Rogers) who lives in a boarding house with Anderson, who thinks Anderson is being a royally pompous ass about the whole "hero" thing.
Eric and Rogers become friends, giving each other advice for "friends of theirs," one of whom was the coward in the post office robbery, the other has a badly hurt brother in the hospital.
Two Living, One Dead actually becomes far less infuriating once Eric and Rogers start hanging out. The scenes between them are probably the best in the movie, and there's a scene where Rogers tells off Anderson for being a pompous ass that's very satisfying. (Although I think that happens before he meets Eric.)
In another scene Rogers kind of tells off Eric's wife for being a hysterical bitch, which was somewhat satisfying. (It would have been more satisfying if I could have climbed into the television and slapped her, but that technology doesn't exist yet.)
Overall it was a good movie in the sense that it was engaging and the main character is likeable, even if he is rather mousey and doormatly. It was just really hard to get through the first half when everybody is giving him shit for not getting himself shot.
'Cause here's the thing: I have always heard that proper protocol in a robbery is to do what the robbers say, especially if they're armed, and then get help afterwards. The reason for this is to avoid as much injury and death as possible. So why the hell is an entire town mad at this guy for doing things properly and for wanting to stay alive in order to provide for his family? "Oh you're not brave and stupid and dead, so you suck." No, he doesn't. He's smart.
Admittedly, if the robbers had messed with pretty much any other character Patrick McGoohan ever played they would've gotten punched in the face because fuck them, but he wasn't in that kind of movie. And, honestly, it was really cool to see him play someone rather mousey and doormatly.
It was just a hard movie to watch because I really, really didn't understand why everybody in town treated Eric the way they did.
End of line.
-Sally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
