Dennis Hopper died today of complications from prostate cancer. Definitely a bummer, but he was 74 so I think he had a good go of it. Hats off to you, Mr. Hopper. Rest in peace. Everyone go watch Blue Velvet or Easy Rider or Speed or other movies of his that I can't think of right now.Saturday, May 29, 2010
R.I.P. Dennis Hopper (1936-2010)
Dennis Hopper died today of complications from prostate cancer. Definitely a bummer, but he was 74 so I think he had a good go of it. Hats off to you, Mr. Hopper. Rest in peace. Everyone go watch Blue Velvet or Easy Rider or Speed or other movies of his that I can't think of right now.
Friday, May 28, 2010
SEX AND THE CITY 2 (2010)
DIRECTOR: Michael Patrick KingSTARRING: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon
First and foremost let me say that I am a fan of the original show. I’ve enjoyed it in its entirety, so I have earned any shots that I take at this movie. I’ll admit that going into this I knew it would be bad, considering the mess the first one was, but I didn’t know how many shades of bad it would be. While it wasn’t quite as frustrating as the first one, this was just a little more pointless, a little more ridiculous, and — believe it or not — a lot more offensive.
In Sex and the City 2, two years have gone by since Carrie (Parker) married Big, the love of her life. She is already finding herself sinking into a sparkle-free marriage funk, lamenting over what she perceives as monotony. In Carrie-world, this spells doom. Meanwhile, Charlotte (Davis) is dealing with the stressful realities of raising two young daughters; Miranda (Nixon) is having trouble balancing her job and family life; and good ole’ Samantha (Cattrall) is battling off menopause. Clearly, the girls need a getaway. Where better to go than the “New” Middle East?
As you may have been able to guess by now, there is little to no plot to speak of here. This movie is essentially an excuse to relocate the girls to a “fabulous” new location and see what shenanigans they can get into. The miracle is the fact that they manage to stretch it out over a two and a half hour running time. Theoretically that should be comparable to spending a fun afternoon watching episodes of the show, but it’s much less tolerable. In the show, everything is quick, quick, quick — there are no shots of the girls walking down the sidewalk just to showcase their outfits, and the scenes are smart enough to follow a common thread. In the movie, on the other hand, the only priority is how many designer labels they can pack into two hours.
This brings me to another problem. What made the show so enjoyable was the fact that it was so easy to relate to the characters: “You’re such a Miranda!” “I do that sometimes, too!” Each of them is unique and, in a way, they each represent a different facet of modern femininity. The tragedy about the movies is that the characters have become completely glossed over. I can’t help but wonder (ooh, a Carrie-ism!) if the director thought that because they would be on a larger screen they had to become larger characters, therefore transforming them into cartoonish versions of themselves. Charlotte won’t stop shrieking with glee, Samantha has to crack a lame joke in every scene she’s in — even Big has become an annoying exaggeration of himself! Need I go on? I swear I wanted to throttle every one of them.
Now for my biggest gripe. I didn’t know it was possible to be genuinely offended by a movie like this, but as it turns out, it is. As the movie struggled to try to carry on the show’s original pseudo-feminist edge (which, I admit, was groundbreaking at the time), it seemed to forget that there is a world outside of NYC and, yes, America. And, the fact of the matter is, most of that outside world dislikes us. Watch this movie and you’ll see a pretty decent reason why. It astounds me that a film that should be so innocent could be so culturally disrespectful. I won’t go into any details so as not to spoil you viewers, but it involves Samantha in the middle of a crowd of Arab men — not to mention, the frequent mentions of the burqa, which was so unbelievably ethnocentric that eventually I just had to tune it out. (That doesn’t mean I’m pro-burqa, I’m just pro-sensitivity.) The underlying message they were going for, of course, was that all women are essentially the same — part of one big international sisterhood. That’s nice, but not when what comes across is that all women are the same as women here, even under those oppressive burqas.
I probably don’t need to outright say that this sucked. It did. If you’re a fan of the show you still might enjoy it, but not if you’re a recently converted feminist and an admirer of, you know, good films.
FINAL GRADE: C-
First and foremost let me say that I am a fan of the original show. I’ve enjoyed it in its entirety, so I have earned any shots that I take at this movie. I’ll admit that going into this I knew it would be bad, considering the mess the first one was, but I didn’t know how many shades of bad it would be. While it wasn’t quite as frustrating as the first one, this was just a little more pointless, a little more ridiculous, and — believe it or not — a lot more offensive.
In Sex and the City 2, two years have gone by since Carrie (Parker) married Big, the love of her life. She is already finding herself sinking into a sparkle-free marriage funk, lamenting over what she perceives as monotony. In Carrie-world, this spells doom. Meanwhile, Charlotte (Davis) is dealing with the stressful realities of raising two young daughters; Miranda (Nixon) is having trouble balancing her job and family life; and good ole’ Samantha (Cattrall) is battling off menopause. Clearly, the girls need a getaway. Where better to go than the “New” Middle East?
As you may have been able to guess by now, there is little to no plot to speak of here. This movie is essentially an excuse to relocate the girls to a “fabulous” new location and see what shenanigans they can get into. The miracle is the fact that they manage to stretch it out over a two and a half hour running time. Theoretically that should be comparable to spending a fun afternoon watching episodes of the show, but it’s much less tolerable. In the show, everything is quick, quick, quick — there are no shots of the girls walking down the sidewalk just to showcase their outfits, and the scenes are smart enough to follow a common thread. In the movie, on the other hand, the only priority is how many designer labels they can pack into two hours.
This brings me to another problem. What made the show so enjoyable was the fact that it was so easy to relate to the characters: “You’re such a Miranda!” “I do that sometimes, too!” Each of them is unique and, in a way, they each represent a different facet of modern femininity. The tragedy about the movies is that the characters have become completely glossed over. I can’t help but wonder (ooh, a Carrie-ism!) if the director thought that because they would be on a larger screen they had to become larger characters, therefore transforming them into cartoonish versions of themselves. Charlotte won’t stop shrieking with glee, Samantha has to crack a lame joke in every scene she’s in — even Big has become an annoying exaggeration of himself! Need I go on? I swear I wanted to throttle every one of them.
Now for my biggest gripe. I didn’t know it was possible to be genuinely offended by a movie like this, but as it turns out, it is. As the movie struggled to try to carry on the show’s original pseudo-feminist edge (which, I admit, was groundbreaking at the time), it seemed to forget that there is a world outside of NYC and, yes, America. And, the fact of the matter is, most of that outside world dislikes us. Watch this movie and you’ll see a pretty decent reason why. It astounds me that a film that should be so innocent could be so culturally disrespectful. I won’t go into any details so as not to spoil you viewers, but it involves Samantha in the middle of a crowd of Arab men — not to mention, the frequent mentions of the burqa, which was so unbelievably ethnocentric that eventually I just had to tune it out. (That doesn’t mean I’m pro-burqa, I’m just pro-sensitivity.) The underlying message they were going for, of course, was that all women are essentially the same — part of one big international sisterhood. That’s nice, but not when what comes across is that all women are the same as women here, even under those oppressive burqas.
I probably don’t need to outright say that this sucked. It did. If you’re a fan of the show you still might enjoy it, but not if you’re a recently converted feminist and an admirer of, you know, good films.
FINAL GRADE: C-
Monday, May 17, 2010
IRON MAN 2 (2010)
DIRECTOR: Jon FavreauSTARRING: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke
This was one of those movies that I felt obligated to see. Even though I wasn’t wildly impressed with the first Iron Man it was entertaining enough, so I figured this would be a decent way to spend my Saturday night. Besides, I usually like RDJ and, frankly, I’m always up for a little Scarlett Johansson action. Between the two of them there isn’t much to complain about. The rest of the movie, however, left plenty to complain about.
Iron Man 2 picks up where the first one left off. Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) a.k.a. Iron Man is busy trying to clean up the mess of revealing to the world his superhero alter ego; the government wants to confiscate his Iron Man suit/weapon, and the substance keeping him alive is also slowly poisoning him. Meanwhile, he’s also got the rest of the world struggling to keep up with his incredible technological advances. Unbeknownst to him, however, Ivan Vanko (Rourke) a.k.a. Whiplash is off in Russia cooking up a suit/weapon of his own, harboring a festering wrath for Tony and planning to take him down. Clearly, Tony’s got a lot on his plate — can he pull it all together in time to save himself and the world?!
Forgive my blatant facetiousness there. I guess there was a lot about this movie that bothered me. Yes, RDJ was charming; yes, Scarlett Jo was as foxy as ever; and yes, there were plenty of fight scenes and explosions. So, you ask, how could I be disappointed? Maybe it’s because I fall into the small percentage of the film-watching population that is actually bored by explosions. I’m tired of the action movie clichés; I’m tired of the arrogant hero, the spineless love interest, the morality-free rival, the revenge-driven villain, the noble sidekick… I could go on and on. Haven’t we seen these caricatures enough? Do we really need another film that reinforces the idea that men are worthy of iron suits while women can’t even handle being a CEO for a week? (Sorry, I just converted to feminism.)
I don’t really have a lot more to say. Even though this was only a two-hour movie, which isn’t that bad, I was bored to death halfway through. And, honestly, I’d like to see a little more versatility in RDJ’s roles. We get that he’s witty and charming. What else has he got up his sleeve? Anyway, I think I’ll pass on Iron Man 3. I can get by without it.
FINAL GRADE: C
THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2009)
DIRECTOR: Niels Arden OplevSTARRING: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace
So, apparently these books upon which this film and its sequels are based are the latest craze to hit the literary world. I haven’t had the time to pick them up myself, but after seeing this film they’ve been elevated to the top of my to-read list, in hopes of catching up by the time movie #2 (The Girl Who Played With Fire) gets released in the States. This is a Swedish film that strongly proves to me that Europeans know what the hell they’re doing when it comes to subtlety and intelligence. I’m curious to see how the American remake measures up...
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo begins by following a disgraced reporter named Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist). While waiting to serve a short prison sentence for trying to expose a corrupt politician, he is approached by Henrik Vanger, a wealthy old man who hires Blomkvist to solve the decades-old disappearance of his niece, Harriet. As Blomkvist begins to look into the mystery, he eventually joins forces with Lisbeth Salander (Rapace), a brilliant hacker and the girl mentioned in the title; she is perhaps more of a mystery herself than Harriet Vanger’s disappearance.
I’ll leave it at that, seeing as the plot and characters’ backgrounds get fairly complex. The interesting thing about this film is that before Americans got ahold of these books and marketed them here, this was originally titled Men Who Hate Women. While it’s certainly not a poetic title, it probably lends itself to the story’s purpose better than the new title. This is not about Blomkvist and his own work, or even his efforts to solve the case; it is about women. It’s about Lisbeth and the violence she has endured; or the horrors that Harriet may or may not have suffered; or, without revealing too much, about the victims Blomkvist and Lisbeth discover along the way. This is a film that, if you so choose to see it, should be looked at as more than just a murder mystery. It’s an example of something I’ve talked about before: the ability of a film to have an underlying statement without beating it into the audience’s head. Everything is there, but even without it, the film works. It’s a skillful accomplishment.
As far as technicalities go, everything one would hope would be in a European film is here. It knows when to be subtle and it certainly knows when to not shy away. I will say that this isn’t really for the delicate viewer; there is one scene in particular that even horrified me, and that’s difficult to pull off. What I most appreciated, however, was the casting of Lisbeth. Even though I haven’t read the book yet I knew she was perfect: androgynous, sexy without being sexualized, and chillingly calculating. Bravo, Ms. Rapace!
Bottom line: so good that I’m nervous about the remake. Even though David Fincher (of Se7en and Fight Club) is directing it, I’m worried that we Americans will miss the point entirely. I feel it’s too important a point to overlook. So… go see it!
FINAL GRADE: A-
So, apparently these books upon which this film and its sequels are based are the latest craze to hit the literary world. I haven’t had the time to pick them up myself, but after seeing this film they’ve been elevated to the top of my to-read list, in hopes of catching up by the time movie #2 (The Girl Who Played With Fire) gets released in the States. This is a Swedish film that strongly proves to me that Europeans know what the hell they’re doing when it comes to subtlety and intelligence. I’m curious to see how the American remake measures up...
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo begins by following a disgraced reporter named Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist). While waiting to serve a short prison sentence for trying to expose a corrupt politician, he is approached by Henrik Vanger, a wealthy old man who hires Blomkvist to solve the decades-old disappearance of his niece, Harriet. As Blomkvist begins to look into the mystery, he eventually joins forces with Lisbeth Salander (Rapace), a brilliant hacker and the girl mentioned in the title; she is perhaps more of a mystery herself than Harriet Vanger’s disappearance.
I’ll leave it at that, seeing as the plot and characters’ backgrounds get fairly complex. The interesting thing about this film is that before Americans got ahold of these books and marketed them here, this was originally titled Men Who Hate Women. While it’s certainly not a poetic title, it probably lends itself to the story’s purpose better than the new title. This is not about Blomkvist and his own work, or even his efforts to solve the case; it is about women. It’s about Lisbeth and the violence she has endured; or the horrors that Harriet may or may not have suffered; or, without revealing too much, about the victims Blomkvist and Lisbeth discover along the way. This is a film that, if you so choose to see it, should be looked at as more than just a murder mystery. It’s an example of something I’ve talked about before: the ability of a film to have an underlying statement without beating it into the audience’s head. Everything is there, but even without it, the film works. It’s a skillful accomplishment.
As far as technicalities go, everything one would hope would be in a European film is here. It knows when to be subtle and it certainly knows when to not shy away. I will say that this isn’t really for the delicate viewer; there is one scene in particular that even horrified me, and that’s difficult to pull off. What I most appreciated, however, was the casting of Lisbeth. Even though I haven’t read the book yet I knew she was perfect: androgynous, sexy without being sexualized, and chillingly calculating. Bravo, Ms. Rapace!
Bottom line: so good that I’m nervous about the remake. Even though David Fincher (of Se7en and Fight Club) is directing it, I’m worried that we Americans will miss the point entirely. I feel it’s too important a point to overlook. So… go see it!
FINAL GRADE: A-
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)