Miami Vice (2006)

Miami Vice (2006)
dir. Michael Mann
viewed on: 2007-10-13
rating: 3.5

I can't say I watched the TV series much, mostly because I wasn't really into cop dramas when I was ten years old. It seemed sort of cool, though, and fun in that it didn't seem to take itself too seriously. The movie is the opposite. It takes itself WAY too seriously-- or, at least the characters (good guys and bad guys alike) never smile and rarely crack a joke. I realize the drug trade and drug war are serious business, but does it commonly cause constipation? 'Cause that's what everyone looked like: constipated... which, come to think of it, is sort of ironic given the crappiness of the movie.

Though the plot is about Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Tubbs (Jamie Foxx) trying to infiltrate a major Columbian drug cartel, the focus is on the sort of forbidden romance between Crockett and the drug lord's top aide / concubine, played by Gong Li. But even then, the movie seems to be more about mood than about... anything. Stuff happens, there's a shoot-out, yada, yada, yada. I was so bored after about 45 minutes that I stopped paying attention and instead worked on setting up a wireless network in my apartment.

I have almost zero skill when it comes to computer networking, so after some fruitless tinkering on my own, I searched the web ad nauseum trying to figure out why my shiny new Apple Airport Extreme base station was not working with my AT&T DSL, beyond the obvious fact that AT&T is lame to begin with. (Would it kill them to write a decent guide to setting up a wireless network? Isn't writing a good set of instructions cheaper than hiring tech support staff?) It was night, so calling tech support was out of the question. I wasn't keen on it anyway, since not only do you have to wait on hold, but when you finally get through it seems to take forever for them to walk you through a problem. I tried lots of keyword search combinations on Google and got several near misses: every time, the potentially useful page ended up referring to a different DSL modem than I had, or a different Mac model, or a different Mac OS, or an older version of Airport, etc., etc. I thought Macs were supposed to be easy. Sheesh.

Anyway, finally, FINALLY... I threw in everything I could think of:

wireless networking at&t yahoo speedstream 4100 airport extreme

Third result on google:
http://community.livejournal.com/macosx/5545889.html

Bingo! Someone in some forum had the exact problem I did. (Of course, it took a while to then follow this solution and change my DSL modem to PPPoE mode... whatever the hell that is.)

Out of curiosity (and because I still wasn't interested in watching Miami Vice, which by this point was nearly over), I tried some of my searches on Ask.com and Yahoo. I got some similar hits to Google, but mostly crap. And for the final, prize-winning search, the link was nowhere to be found on either Ask.com or Yahoo. Ask returned only three hits (plus a bunch of ads), and Yahoo essentially truncated the search to "wireless" which was about the most useless search ever. Oh good, 1 trillion hits. I'll just click through those now. So, at least in this instance, Google was the better search engine.

I'm not sure what the point of that digression into wireless networking and search mechanics was, but if it bored you, good. Now you know how boring Miami Vice is. I just saved you about two hours.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

dir. Sam Raimi
Viewed on 2007-05-12
Rating: 5.5

The subtitle for Spider-Man 3 should've been "Spidey Sells Out" because it's applicable to both the character in the movie and to the movie itself. While I didn't have high expectations, I wanted to like Spidey 3, and I hoped it would be close to as good as the first two. Now I'm hoping it doesn't match the overall box office success of the first two films so that the franchise (which is pretty damn likely to continue) will undergo some necessary revision. Still, the $282M it has so far grossed domestically (at the time of this writing) isn't chump change, $258M budget or no. So, I guess I'm hoping for a steep drop-off once the other blockbusters come out (Shrek 3, Pirates 3).

Reminiscent of Batmans 2, 3, and especially 4, Spidey 3 suffers from surplus-villain syndrome and character-developmentophobia, both of which are common symptoms of sequelitis.(1) Here we get Green Goblin, Jr., Sandman, and Venom, whose main functions are to distract us from the mish-mashed plot, which in turn seems only held together by the action. I don't want to sound like the typical whiny, unsatisfied fanboy, but the movie probably should have paid more attention to the comics, in which the Goblin (first father, then son) and Venom are arguably at the top of Spidey's all-time enemy list, not the annoying villains du jour.

Instead, the film focuses more on the Peter-Parker-as-his-own-worst-enemy theme which could have worked had more time been spent building it up. But with all the villains buzzing around, the writers had to move things along and chose to make Peter Parker almost instantly turn into the Spectacular Spider-Jerk so that he can first confront himself, then take care of business with the external villains. In a nutshell, Peter starts acting like a self-absorbed, fame-seeking creep, happens to come in contact with an alien symbiont that enjoys being bad, and presto: becomes the Unfriendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. The dark Parker scenes were mostly physical humor and sight gags, and actually worked on a humor level--even when he's a badass, Peter Parker is still a dork. But this took away any chance that the movie was going to be anything more than another spectacle-driven comic book movie. That's exactly the kind of thing the first two Spider-Man movies, which had more emotional hooks and less epic action, seemed to rebel against -- in as much as a big-budget summer blockbuster can "rebel" against anything. (I'll leave it to Slate to explain more of the problems with Emo Spider-Man.)

At least if the villains were going to be a distraction, they could have been tougher or scarier. The Goblin story had the makings of a pure tragedy, but ends up as a tragically heroic redemption story. Same with the Sandman story, but to a lesser extent on both points. Also, a lot of money was, in my opinion, wasted on the Sandman special effects which, despite their novelty, were way overused. I liked Thomas Hayden Church's performance, but he had to cede too much of his screen time to the repetitive Sandman effects.(2) Finally, Venom was too easy to dispatch, and for a villain of his stature in the printed Spidey universe, the ridiculously compacted storyline for him turned the character into mostly a joke. It didn't help that Topher Grace isn't the least bit scary, either.

Tobey Maguire put the franchise into perspective in a recent USA Today article: "...it's hard to imagine continuously coming up with stories that deserve to be told. I'm not sure if there are more stories for this character that are interesting enough to be excited about doing more." Not with the current creative team, anyway. If there's any truth in this source, it looks like more of the same for future films.

Great. Spin us a new web, Spidey.

'Nuff said.

....................
(1) Characterized perfectly by the line in Spaceballs: "God willing we'll all meet in Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money."

(2) Of course the whole thing is far-fetched, but the Sandman is one of those characters that seems to belong solely to the realm of comic books. The science behind him is absurdly implausible when you take even a second to think about it. How could every molecule of a man be turned into sand? And, even if that were achieved, how could those grains of sand then re-coalesce and have any intelligence whatsoever, let alone the memories of the man?

Grindhouse (2007)

viewed on: 2007-04-29
overall rating: 8.0

Planet Terror
dir. Robert Rodriguez
rating: 8.0

Planet Terror could possibly be my favorite zombie movie after Shaun of the Dead. Whereas the latter is a comedy with action, Planet Terror is an action movie with tongue-in-cheek comedy. For example, Cherry Darling's (Rose McGowan's) gun-leg is simultaneously super-badass and super-cheesy.

The plot is irrelevant and utterly uncomplicated--zombies, mayhem, explosions--so I'll just list things I loved, in addition to the "leg."

-Freddy Rodriguez and his character El Wray. Although El Wray was mostly played for laughs, Freddy could definitely carry his own action movie. He's a good actor.
-Michael Biehn, who really should be cast in every action movie made. His steely gaze and somewhat gravelly voice were made for the genre. And he's been in some of the best examples of action movies (good and bad): Terminator, Aliens, Navy Seals, The Rock... Inspired casting here.
-The return of Earl McGraw (Michael Parks), a recurring Tarantino/Rodriguez character. He originated in From Dusk Till Dawn, showed up in Kill Bill, and appears in both parts of Grindhouse.
-Bruce Willis. Fit his (essentially cameo) role like a glove.
-Rose McGowan, it turns out, is a good actress, and was a wasted talent on the very crappy tv show "Charmed." She does almost a 180 between her two roles in Grindhouse, and is believable in both. Hopefully she'll start getting more good roles.

One thing I wish got paid off more were the specially-made car and motorcycle. The movie made a big deal of revealing them, but they didn't figure into the plot much after that. I was expecting them to be tricked out with weapons or something, but they were basically only for show--helping the good guys look cool. The chopper was used a bit in one or two stunts, but the car wasn't really.

I could've done without Quentin Tarantino, limited screen time though he had. As a writer and director he is high-quality; as an actor, not so much. I think my dislike of him on screen has to do with his perpetual smirking sneer, or sneering smirk, whatever you want to call it--I can't take him seriously as an actor at all.


The trailers
dir. (various)
rating: 9.5

Before the main features there were fake trailers for other "grind house" type films. These were each directed by buddies of Rodriguez and Tarantino, and they were awesome--completely flippin' hilarious. The titles actually do them a lot of justice:
"Machete"
"Werewolf Women of the SS"
"Thanksgiving"
"Don't!"
but the trailers themselves are a treat. I could've watched an hour or more of these, especially if it meant taking time away from the next feature...


Death Proof
dir. Quentin Tarantino
rating: 6.5

While I don't have any idea of what makes a movie a "grind house" film, my impression after seeing Grindhouse was that Planet Terror was "it," the trailers for the fake films were "it," and Death Proof was "not it." If not for the ending, an extended car chase sequence that joins the one in Bullitt among the best ever, there wouldn't be much to recommend Death Proof.

The film's structure goes like this:
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Action sequence
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Talk
Very long action sequence

Now, this being a Tarantino movie, you'd expect witty dialogue with cultural references and observations. But there's just... So. Damn. Much. I have no doubt that had I watched the movie at home, or after 9:00 at night I would have fallen asleep through much of it. Sure all the conversation is interesting and well-written when taken in small parts, but it gets freaking boring if it goes on and on without much point. Essentially, Death Proof would have worked a lot better if it were only an hour long rather than 1:30. The acting was good, the climactic action sequence, though, was excellent, and somewhat cathartic given the slow pace of most of the rest of the movie. Also, if you imagine Quentin Tarantino in the place of Kurt Russell's character in the very last scene before the credits, it's even more cathartic. (I can't say more without spoiling it.) To me, the film was mostly a self-indulgent outlet for its writer-director, and aside from the action sequences, it wasn't clear that it belonged as part of a "grind house" program.

Overall
The whole Grindhouse experience was highly original and entertaining--original, that is, in the sense that it's totally unique to the present-day moviegoing experience. We simply do not have double features of first-run films anymore, and rarely (it seems) do we get movies made just for the hell of it. Everything, and especially the popcorn movies, is marketed and audience-targeted to death.

So, in spite of my "issues" with Death Proof, the whole thing gets bonus points for originality of concept and for the side-splitting fake trailers whose full film versions I would pay to see if they ever got made. (How about more "Grindhouses" featuring those movies? Or at least "Machete" and "Werewolf Women of the SS"?)

Oh, and I should mention that I paid only $3 for my ticket. That's the matinee price at the Culver Plaza Theater where I saw it. Sweet! The only way to get more retro than a $3 double feature would be to see it at a drive-in.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

dir. Edgar Wright
Viewed on: 2007-04-22
Rating: 9

Best. Cop movie. Ever.

That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. Actually, I'm ambivalent towards cop movies, some are lame, and some are classics like The French Connection. Anyway, I made some comments a few posts ago about my wish to see a comedy composed completely of cliches, but presented in a deadpan way. Lo and behold, here is Hot Fuzz, which is probably the closest match I have yet seen to what I was talking about. Maybe it was because I was conscious of those comments, having written them so recently, that I noticed what was going on in Hot Fuzz more than I might have otherwise. Still, I don't think the movie can be fully enjoyed the way it was intended if its viewers aren't aware of the humor underlying the surface humor.

Now, granted, Hot Fuzz is absolutely a straightforward comedy played for laughs, employing lots of physical humor, jokes, and excellent puns.(1) In these aspects alone it is a good movie. And no one would mistake it for anything less than a parody of the cop movie genre. But the film goes to some trouble to clue the audience in to a larger, yet more subtle purpose of not only poking fun at cop movies, but completely deconstructing them. One example is the soundtrack, with abundant, overly loud sound effects and a tense musical score--neither of which would be at all out of place in a common action-suspense movie. Another is the use of references to other movies. Nick Frost's character Danny hasn't seen much police action, so movies like Point Break and Bad Boys II are his frame of reference when he tries to relate to his new hard-ass partner Nicholas (played by Simon Pegg). Danny asks Nicholas about a particular scene in Point Break, later shows the film to Nicholas who hadn't seen it, and finally ends up paralleling the scene near the end of the movie. But although the parallel was set up all along, it still played out logically. That is, Danny does the same thing Keanu Reeves does in a similar moment in Point Break for the same reason, not because he's merely imitating Keanu or making fun of Point Break.

I'm trying not to spoil the details here more than I might have already, so my example might be a little vague. Suffice it to say that I think the references (2) to the other movies, or the elements of those movies, reveal Hot Fuzz as something more complex than a genre parody.(3)

Apart from the clever writing, the acting is outstanding. For one thing, your average British cast always seems more talented top-to-bottom than the typical American one (4), and good actors just seem to have a knack for comedy as it is. But also, I think Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, the lead actors, could become one of the top comic duos ever, based on only Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.

Speaking of Shaun of the Dead, it occurs to me that it too might be a good example of a cliche-based film that isn't overly aware of itself. Although, not having seen it in a while, I have an impression of it as being more of a straight-up parody of zombie movies, and not as much a deconstruction.

I'll have to revisit Hot Fuzz several months from now to see if I still like it as much. I hedged my rating a little--I was going to give it a 9.5--because I am initially flattened by the movie's total awesomeness, and at the moment it's hard to see anything wrong with it other than what I imagine people who aren't me might say. For example, some could argue that the movie, especially the ending, is too long. In that regard, though, Hot Fuzz's long ending is entirely necessary since cop movies or action movies in general often have overly-long climaxes with endless action sequences and multiple resurrections of both the good guys and the bad guys. Anything less would have been untrue to the genre the movie deconstructs.

Of course, one could choose not to buy my argument that the movie is a deconstruction. In that case, though, I think the movie would have much less value but still would be worth watching.


Notes:
(1) My favorite pun is the description of a character named George Merchant, the local appliance retail tycoon, as "the refrigerator magnate." Heh heh.

(2) Another great reference was almost a blink-and-you-miss-it moment where the final line of Chinatown is paraphrased but not really dwelled upon or otherwise highlighted. In fact, I don't think Chinatown is mentioned or referenced in any other part of Hot Fuzz.

(3) I think what I consider a parody movie is one that calls attention to characteristics of one or more other movies by explicitly highlighting and exaggerating those characteristics for humorous effect. Basically, as caricature is to cartoons, parody is to movies. Therefore, I see deconstruction comedy as taking an extra step in that it makes more oblique references to the same characteristics with the intent of peeling off layers of meaning so they can be laughed at for their inherent absurdity, not merely mocked. I believe Hot Fuzz does both. And I'm not saying, here or in my comments on Not Another Teen Movie, that one is a better type of comedy than the other, just that I've seen plenty of parody and would love to see much more deconstruction.

(4) Maybe it's due to the fact that they make far fewer movies, and fewer per actor, in the UK, so to get a part you have to be damn good.

Huo Yuan Jia, aka Jet Li's Fearless (2006)

dir. Ronny Yu
Viewed on 2007-03-17
rating: 6

I could recount the plot, but what's the point? The only reason to watch this film is for the fight scenes, a few of which are quite good. The opening sequence pits wushu master Huo Yuanjia (played by Li) against a succession of western martial artists, an English boxer, a German lance/spear specialist dude, and a Spanish fencer, in some kind of tournament. (There's always either a tournament or a succession of revenge fights in kung fu movies, or sometimes both.) Before Yuanjia fights his final opponent, we're sent into a flashback--lasting most of the movie--depicting how the character got to this point.* Along the way, there is a pretty cool fight on top of an elaborate wooden structure. Later, Yuanjia battles a rival master in a gruesome, vengeful sword fight throughout a restaurant, culminating in the wine cellar. It wasn't merely a knock-down drag-out fight. To that point, Yuanjia had merely been a cocky prize fighter, but then he lets his pride lead him into a foolish revenge fight. By starting in the bright restaurant and descending into the dark cellar, it mirrors the character's own descent. It's clever, and I think it's a good example of what "they" say is "the language of film."

As you'd expect if you've seen Jet Li's movies, the martial arts action is of a high quality. However, the movie overall occupies kind of a middle space between the typical kung fu flick and the poetic/balletic martial arts epic dramas like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I felt like I had seen better of both types of movies from Jet Li--Fist of Legend on the "flick" end, and Hero at the arty end (both of which are highly recommended, btw).


* Am I just whining or does it seem like this type of narrative structure--start in the present; then flashback to past events that lead back to the present--is so played? It's like it's the method of choice for building an "unconventional" narrative, except that it's been used so often that it is now quite conventional, yet somehow more bland because the attempt to be unconventional is so transparent. Maybe I'm being too neurotic about it. Or perhaps I'm just worn out from having seen it on "Alias" So. Many. Times. ...so often that you'd think it's the only way JJ Abrams knows how to tell a story. He even did it when he directed Mission: Impossible III.

300 (2007)

dir. Zack Snyder
Viewed on 2007-03-09
Rating: 8

Okay, so I like historical epics. Some people like romantic comedies despite knowing the outcome before seeing the first frame. I like swords. Some people like costume dramas. I like gory battle scenes. And heroic victories and deaths. Those types of movies are my genre of choice for the times when I need to watch something on the big screen and don't want to think much about it. I say that, but when it happens that such a movie does make me think a little, I'm always pleased rather than annoyed.

No, there's nothing too cerebral about 300, a very faithful adaptation (both visually and dialog-wise) of Frank Miller's award-winning graphic novel depicting the 480 B.C. Battle of Thermopylae, where 300 Spartans, and several hundred other Greeks, significantly wounded the massive Persian army at the cost of all their lives.[1] Oh, it's an action movie through and through, and in its lesser moments it comes off as a recruitment ad for the Marines. Still, the film implicitly asks a couple of questions that are worth thinking about every once in a while: 1) What causes are worth sacrificing yourself for? 2) How would you acquit yourself when facing certain death? The answers as they relate to 300 are: 1) Liberty; 2) Fight till your last breath. Or you could look at the basic message more existentially: defend what you think is right; do whatever you can until you can't.

Nothing mind-bending in that, but worth reflecting on occasionally, I think. Combine it with some witty laconic dialog [2], a nearly religious attentiveness to the imagery created by Frank Miller (artist) and Lynn Varley (colorist) in the graphic novel, and some decent acting, and it makes for a satisfying spectacle.


[1] Do you think I gave away too much? Tough. There's no such thing as a spoiler for something that happened 2,500 years ago. Anyway, read the linked Wikipedia article. It's good for you. Another question that comes to mind after watching the movie and reading the article: how would Western Civilization have been different if the Greeks had simply been flattened at Thermopylae and the Persians were able to march right through? Would there even be a Western Civilization? Hey, and sure enough, Wikipedia has a separate article on battles of "macrohistorical" importance (macromawhatical?), listing Thermopylae as one.

[2] Pun intended. Also, an example: One of my favorite moments is at the beginning when the Persian envoy comes to Sparta asking King Leonidas to submit to the overwhelming might of the "god-king" Xerxes in exchange for power and riches. Leonidas of course refuses, which prompts the envoy's outrage: "This is blasphemy! This is madness!" Leonidas responds, "This is Sparta!"