Cloverfield is a waste of time

From the guys that brought you Lost comes the new, hit movie "Cloverfield". Which, I'm sorry to say, is a really really bad movie.

It's a retread of the terrible monster attacks New York City, but told from the perspective of the most annoying people in the city.

Cloverfield suffers from all the things a movie can suffer from. It offers a putrid potpourri of bad casting, bad acting, bad script, bad direction, and pointedly abysmal camera-work. It's not scary, haunting, or disturbing and since the main characters are all pretty awful, I was never all that sad to see them go.

I generally conceive of movies as stories told through acting and camera-work. The general framework of a story is something like: protagonist is introduced, a problem is discovered, the problem is examined, and finally the problem is resolved. I think that JJ Abrams (the producer of this movie -- and also Lost) has realized that the hardest part of story-telling is those last two parts.

The easiest part is the beginning bit. Because we movie goers are a bunch of curious monkeys. We see just a little of something or get a hint of motivation here or there and we're hooked. We want to know what happens, how it ends up. But when you've posited a giant octopus-monster in the middle of Manhattan, it's kinda hard to come up with legitimate explanations that will satisfy the audience. So instead of trying to explain anything, just keep bringing up new and weirder questions. Bring up so many questions that the original questions are forgotten or seem insignificant.

Like Lost before it, Cloverfield is an extension of this methodology. It's a monster movie with no real monster, with no development and no resolution. There's no story, just teaser and nauseating camera-work.

A brief synopsis...

Children of Men is Cool

Nelly and I took a little time this weekend to go see Children of Men, which turned out to be a rather good idea. It's an interesting and thoughtful movie. Now usually that means there will be a ton of exposition and a lot of boring quasi-philosophical narration. But Children tells its story deftly and the details of this crazy mixed-up future-world seem to flow out naturally from a great script.

The one thing I would say is that, if you are receptive to the movie when you see it, you should prepare yourself for some strange dreams. This movie hews to our reality so closely that when it raises its unanswerable questions its effects are fairly chilling.

The Good Shepherd v. Munich

For the past two weeks, Nelly has been on break from law school. That means we have more time for doing fun things like seeing movies. We recently saw "The Good Shepherd" which was unbelievably long. (Remember that scene at the end of LotR where all the hobbits are hugging on the bed and they're saying goodbye and it just goes on and on... worse than that!)

It's length was just about the only attribute that stood out in this movie. It wasn't that it was bad more that it wasn't nearly good enough for me to spend so much time watching it. This reaction was put in stark relief last night as I flicked over to HBO and found they were playing "Munich" (based on the reputed Mossad assainations after the Munich Masacre).

Both movies follow a regular joe as he backs his way into becoming something of a master spy for his country. Both films take on the delicate balance of familial and patriotic duties. Both show a man slowly progressively losing himself, his friends and family to his occupation. They even have similar run-times (with Munich coming in 4 minutes fatter).

Except Munich paints a much more vibrant, interesting, entertaining, and captivating picture. In every imaginable aspect (writing, directing, acting, dialog, music, editing...) Munich far exceeds TGS. The only categories The Good Shepherd wins are fedoras, trench coats and misery.

"Casino Royale" and "Stranger Than Fiction"

I recently saw "Casino Royale" (the new James Bond) and "Stranger Than Fiction". I really enjoyed both.

Stranger Than Fiction is a nice movie which despite being a one-trick pony plot-wise is actually very entertaining. The premise (a relatively staid man hears his life narrated by an unseen omniscient voice), while original doesn't really provide for much of a drive. Fortunately the cast is so strong that you don't notice that there's really no movie there. Will Farrel has followed Jim Carry's path from course funny-man to Leading Actor.

Casino Royale takes the Bond film back to the future. Based on Ian Flemming's first Bond book, this film takes the liberty to completely break with tradition. Of course, it is still Bond, so the standards (sex, pistols, gadgets, cards) are still present. It's just that the man in the middle is finally portrayed as a human. With frailties, desires, and (the thing that makes him most endearing) an almost indomitable will.

The stakes are not quite End-Of-The-World, but the script is so tight (except for a pointless and bizarre torture scene) that you don't notice the only thing in danger is the stock-market.

Bond pictures are always PG-13 and this one is no exception. They seem to have worked very hard to remove the sexuality. Bizarrely, there's a lot of violence, more than you would expect from a PG-13 movie. I don't really understand why they bother working on the lower rating (or why the rating system allows it). Especially since this may be the most mature Bond film ever, why not just take the R-rating... I guess what I am saying is that there wasn't enough nudity.

Cars is A Movie About Cars

Yesterday, through the heat and the air stagnation advisory Nelly and I went to see Cars. It was an okay movie. There's nothing really to complain about with Cars. But nothing all that grand about it either. The reviews are mostly positive, ranging from "not bad" to "best since Toy Story". I think I fall into the lower edge of the "not bad" spectrum.

I'll admit there some touching moments. I got a kick out of seeing the car-talk guys doing their schtick. And the automotive prowess (and thick accents) of Luigi (Tony Schaloub) and his Italian only helper Guido (Guido Quaroni) were endearing. But, I gotta say, the most lighthearted and truly fun moment in the whole film came after the credits started to roll.

I read a glowing review of Cars that made a big deal of the way Pixar captures the beauty of those drive-across-america views. And if you can remember driving down Route 66 in the back-seat of the family station-wagon, you might enjoy reminiscing along with Cars. Me, I don't have that experience, I am too young. And I think, so are the kids being brought to see this movie.

It should be noted that while we were watching the movie a family of six was struggling to reign in their two 4-year old twin boys. I can't decide if it's significant that the children in the theater weren't all that interested in the movie. If it was only those two rambuctious kids in front of us, or if other toddlers were getting bored with the dialogue and waiting for something squishy to jump out from behind all the boring, endlessly talking cars.

Now This is A Quality Film

The Times had a little blurb on their website about "Cemetary Man" coming out on DVD. I remember watching this movie in college. I think we'd been surfing channels after midnight and found it playing on public access. All I can say is "Wow".

I am really glad that it's out on DVD. There are very few movies I'd actually like to own, this is one of them.

A "DaVinci Code" Stupor

I went to see DaVinci Code last night. The theater was absolutely packed. There was a palpable tension in the air... and then they played twenty minutes of ads and trailers. And I forgot what movie we were actually there to see.

I had heard some of the criticisms of the movie, but hoped that since I didn't ever even consider reading the book, I would be able to enjoy the film on its own merits. Unfortunately, it really doesn't have that many merits.

Other than making the audience laugh at inappropriate times, Ron Howard manages to remove any emotion from the performances of Tom Hanks or Audrey Tautou. The script banks on their growing affection for each other, but neither character ever exhibits anything more than a passing interest in the other.

The movie plays as almost a direct rip-off of National Treasure which was itself a play on the popularity of the "DaVinci Code" book. The movies have obvious similarities (e.g. pasty, unappealing lead actors) but National Treasure is much livelier and more interesting.

I say that and I didn't even really like National Treasure. But it seems like a gleaming masterpiece after seeing this plodding, pointless and pedantic picture.

"Harry Potter" Is Kinda Creepy (But not in the way you'd think)

I have to admit that I did enjoy the 4th Harry Potter movie (Goblet of Fire! OOOOOH). It moves briskly from place to place and keeps that same pace of discovery that has made the Potter books and films so popular. There's always something new, some new spell, some new creature/object/book/person to discover. And the visual presentation of Potter's world is, as always, stunning.

While there are elements of the story that might be disturbing to small children, it's actually a pleasant reprieve from the gore and ludeness of many other films.

All of that led to an enjoyable movie experience. Though this film, like the other Potter movies, left me with an uneasy feeling.

The story is... um... colorful (read forced). Due to a technical malfunction, Potter is selected as the fourth competitor in what the film's characters consistently refer to (without irony) as the Tri-Wizard tournament. While the four of them undertake inane magical contests in the quest for the... er... Tri-Wizard Cup, Harry's also facing veiled threats from Voldemort (bad-guy) and dealing with the problems of being a Tween. His friends hate him, no one understands him, and all he wants is to be left alone.

Also, Hermione (12) starts dating some russian dude (18+). And creepily, all the guy wants to do is "watch her study". Yah. Right. These kids are in need of some serious parental oversite.

In a nice change of pace, they've added some bit parts for ethnicities. Including an Irish-Asian girl who Harry is sweet on, and two Indian girls who Harry and Ron take to a dance. Now that's inclusiveness.

Harry muddles his way through the competition and his social life, blindly, awkwardly and idiotically. All the while complaining that he doesn't want to be special. But everyone around him winks and smiles. He is special, you see! So very special they say as they smile! Yay, Harry Potter! You've done it again!

But, and here lies the hidden creepiness of this movie, Harry's actually not special. His character isn't flawed, it's non-existant. When the movie demands that he cower, he cowers. When it demands that he be brave, he's brave. When he needs amazing magical powers? Bam! Amazing magical powers. When he needs to be magically weak? Bam! No magical powers to speak of. Hmmm...

The only ability he consistently has in this movie is ultra-sonic whining.

And that's the problem with this movie. Harry's not a hero. He's a perpetual victim of circumstance. The people around him worship him, they're enthalled by his successes. But we know that he's just a kid and his successes have more to do with happenstance than anything else.

Harry doesn't do things; things happen to him. Kinda sucks for Harry, but it really sucks for the viewership. Maybe it's the English-ness of the films, with their strange turns of phrase and stiff-upper-lip mentality. Maybe that's how the like their stories told.

Perhaps it's small-minded of me, but I really do prefer my movies to have a hero. Or at least a protaganist. Harry Potter's films (and quite possibly the books as well) don't have a protagnist. Despite having his name of the cover, Harry doesn't move the story.

Still, the Potter movies have an excellent combination of steady direction and solid character acting. And the success of the Potter books has opened up a wonderland, where the old horses of fantasy fiction are set free and wild on the screen. Which is a treat in and of itself and something I, personally, hope I never tire of.

But, in the end, when everything has turned out right and everyone is back where they started, you can't help but wonder if anything actually happened.

Batman Begins Rocks!

I saw Batman Begins last night with a bunch of friends and I have to say it was intensely good. I would say it was excellent, but Katie Holmes' random character/performance keeps it from hitting that mark.

As my friend Laurie said, Batman Begins is the best Crime-fighting Super-hero Action Movie ever. It's the best Batman movie yet. And it's better than either Spiderman, for sure. War of the Worlds is going to have to be really impressive to outslug Batman for the early summer blockbuster.

Christian Bale makes a fantastic Bruce Wayne and a very good Batman. And he blends the two identities in a way that none of the three other Batman actors have been able to accomplish. That feat alone is worth the price of admission.

The action scenes were all shot in seemingly too-close in. Some have criticized this. In my opinion, it lends a kind of chaotic motion to the action scenes. We've become so used to the choreographed dance-fu of Crouching Tiger/Flying Daggers (or even Kung Fu Hustle) that it's become expected. In this movie, however, it seems innapropriate. And Batman's close-in struggles are vivid, exciting and give the grimier, grittier impression of an all-out melee.

The movie is almost 2-and-a-half hours long. I wasn't bothered by the length. They took the time to tell this story, pacing it beautifully and developing both Wayne and the Batman character.

Batman Begins is well acted, shot and directed. The characters are endearing, the storyline flows beautifully together. Do yourself a favor and go see this movie.

(I really hope that they can get Christian Bale and director Chris Nolan back to do another film. And, guys, next time leave Katie Holmes on the cutting room floor.)

"The Interpreter" Was Okay

Some friends and I have begun something they call the "Tuesday Night Movie Club". Which, to be clear, leads me to see a new movie every tuesday (or every other tuesday, depending on the availability of quality movies).

Two tuesdays ago I saw, The Interpreter. It was just okay. Not dissapointing and not any worse than I had anticipated. Which is not to say that it was great.

It suffered from Bizarrely Winding Plot disease, where the story twists and turns for no apparent reason. Nichole Kidmann is funny looking and her accent is, well, obviously an accent. Sean Penn doesn't sizzle and the sparks between these two mega-stars do not fly at all.

The movie leaves you waiting for some engagement on the issues of brutal African dictatorships, their origins, goals and the UN's role. I'd even have settled for some sexual tension between Penn and Kidmann. But in the end, it's just an excuse to put mega-stars (and the UN) on the big screen.

"Sin City" Sucks!

I saw this last night with Laurie and all I can say is: Wow, Sin City is awful. It's a gritty film-noir, but film-noir has been done better in just about every way. The best word to describe it might be "grueling", but "insulting" and "worrying" are just as apt.

In the middle of the movie Laurie blurted out, "You've got to be fucking kidding me!" (or something to that effect). And rightfully so. Later on, as Bruce Willis was punching a prone man's skull into pulp, Laurie leaned over to mention, "There's something seriously wrong with our society."

I don't really know what I was expecting, but I certainly wasn't prepared for the stilted dialog, misogynistic overtones, gratuitous violence and fractured story-line. In many of the film's fade-to-black moments, I found myself praying for the closing credits to roll. Unfortunately, I wouldn't get my reprieve until more than 2 hours had passed.

It has a glittering cast, every major role is played by a recognizable star, but the only good performance comes from Mickey Rourke. The script is stilted and the dialog is plastic. They tried to stay close to the comic book and, predictably, the characters are flat and uninteresting. I feel for the actors who for the most part muddle through (The women especially aren't given very much of anything to work with). It doesn't help that they all seem to have studied at the Keanu Reeves School of Acting.

The press that I've seen on this movie has been mostly focused on the cinematography, which I must admit was impressive. Movie reviewers seem to be so bored with run-of-the-mill live-action films, so starved for a new interpretation of the medium, that they are willing to overlook glaring, often offensive, flaws in this movie.

If you're curious to see the effect of technology on the film industry, you might find Sin City slightly interesting. The film was shot completely with digital cameras. The actors worked in front of green-screen with the backgrounds, colors and action were all added later as special effects. There are some genuinely impressive shots which emulate the gritty tone of the comic, which is mildly impressive considering the differences between the mediums.

But in fully embracing the comic-book, Robert Rodriguez, sacrifices all the elements of film that have made the industry succesful. And the movie (along with everyone watching it) suffers terribly under these artificial constraints.

If you're looking for fun, escape, enjoyment, or stimulation (other than gore and softcore porn) there have got to be other, better movies out now. Then again, maybe it's better if you just stay home a read a book.

The Postman Sucks!

Well, I find it unlikely that anyone would require my confirmation on this. But the Postman is maybe the suckiest movie ever made. There needs to be a law against Kevin Costner reciting Shakespeare.

It snowed a lot this weekend. I didn't get anything done. I blame the snow. Cause you know, I had to shovel and there was football on TV.