Wait, so now WHO is the bad guy?
"The Wolverine" is the latest summer blockbuster that has allowed Hugh Jackman to don the trademark sideburns and wife beater for the fifth time...Jesus, he must want to get away from this by now. The fact is, Jackman has been playing this character for about a decade-and doing a fine job of it-and the impact of the character is starting to dilute, in my opinion.
"The Wolverine" starts with the titular character living alone in the North American wilderness, having taken a vow to never hurt anyone again. This vow lasts about five minutes into the movie, as expected, and he seems to have no problem slicing through dozens of people later on. Logan is plagued nightly by the centuries of memories he's lived through including the ghost of Jean Gray, who appears in his bed most nights to taunt his thoughts and actions. The movie starts with a flashback to Nagasaki, where Logan rescues an officer named Yashida in a scene that is about as pleasant as you would expect for viewing an atomic bomb devastate a country.
Back in present day...meaning the future, I guess...it's never really established, which is kind of a trope for X-Men at this point. Anyway, back in the future, Logan is picked up by a Japanese mutant working for Yashida, one of the most powerful men in Japan. Yashida wishes to thank Logan for saving his life, as well as making him a strange offer. Yashida seems to understand what Logan has been through, and offers him a release from his immortal life. Logan refuses and Yashida dies, unable to convince Logan further. However, Logan is attacked in the night and finds the next day that he is not healing as well as before when Yashida's funeral is attacked and Logan is put in charge of protecting Yashida's granddaughter.
From the title, I thought this would be a sequel of sorts to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." However, it is more like a sequel to "X-Men: The Last Stand," as it takes place an undisclosed amount of time later. It is a spiritual successor to "Origins," in that it focuses entirely on Wolverine and his life, as well as answering the question "How many times can we murder Wolverine in the most gruesome ways possible, just to have him heal again?" Also, "How many times can this dude fall in love with every girl he meets?"
This is one of those movies where there are three acts that are so vastly different that they don't seem to be driving towards any sort of goal. Also, there are a bunch of random villains and even after the movie was over I'm still not sure who the main antagonist was because there are so many surprise enemies. It starts with Logan being brought to Japan. Then he is protecting Yashida's granddaughter at a small cottage in a quiet village. Then he is attacking an enormous facility wherein a giant mech suit of adamantium was built. There are so many twist and turns that half of the movie I was wondering who were the real bad guys and what was their motivation.
The plot kind of peters out halfway through the movie and is replaced by standard save-the-girl movie bullshit. Wolverine is simply too damn powerful to ever be killed, though they come pretty damn close. As with the latest Die Hard movie, I am tempted to say that fans of the series would enjoy watching it, but that is too cheap for a blog with such integrity as this one!
"The Wolverine" earns an Avoid It rating for lackluster writing, poor pacing, and confusing storytelling. Despite some memorable acting performances, including those of Mr. Jackman and the enormous veins in his arms, this movie ultimately fails to deliver.
Until next time, please leave your thoughts on the movie in the comments. I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Monday, July 29, 2013
Saturday, July 20, 2013
A Good Day to Die Hard-Is It Really?
Since I just wrote about a crappy movie trying to be Die Hard, a Die Hard movie should be a treat, right?
There is a fantastic author for Cracked.com by the name of Daniel O'Brien. He has written multiple articles about Die Hard as a movie, as a series, and as a way of life and I recommend you go read some of them now. He has taught me what Die Hard is and what Die Hard means, as well as how Die Hard has been corrupted. Basically what it boils down to is the fact that "Die Hard" has one of the most well-structured plots in action movies and shows that the protagonist doesn't have to be super soldier Jason Bourne saving the world from ultimate destruction. John McClane was just a New York cop trying to reconnect with his wife and stop a terrorist from killing one room full of hostages nothing more.
Now, John McClane is a super soldier immortal, killing machine, iron-legged, bullet-dodging, super hero saving the world. He is no longer the Die Hard we fell in love with. And this sad.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is kind of a mess, to be honest. John McClane goes to Russia to see his estranged son who is locked in Russian prison only to find his son escaping from Russian prison while being chased by Russian terrorists. This plot may seem simpler than the bizarre cluster fuck that the fourth movie was, but it gets crazier.
Nothing is ever established in this movie. We see Jack McClane, John's son, talking to some sort of headquarters about some mission that we don't understand, and we later learn that the headquarters is a group of spies and the mission is to find a file, but we never really to get to understand why this spy group even exists. It's even stranger that John, who saw his son just a few years earlier, had no clue that his son was involved in any kind of "spy shit" as he calls it.
This movie immediately goes off the rails, quite literally. Jack is being chased by Russian terrorists with John in pursuit of them. John has no idea what any of the back story or motives for any of the people involved in this chase, he just knows that his son has escaped from jail. Hell, for all he knows, the people chasing his son are the Russian police. However, John McClane immediately steals several cars to tear through Russian traffic costing millions in damages and countless civilian lives, because he's Die Hard and he feels entitled to being Die Hard by this point. Honestly, at one point in the movie a sniper is firing upon them and Jack immediately hits the ground to crawl away while John stands up straight, grabs a machine gun, and blows away two dozen attackers as they run through the door with their own weapons. He freaking knows he's immortal. And that is no fun.
The plot is just bonkers. There are secret agents, double agents, triple secret agents, terrorists everywhere, prisoners that turn out to be terrorists, and plenty of explosions that only seem to kill innocent bystanders and not people that have names. Nothing about the story is restrained or concise, so the storytelling loses everything that made the original great.
The action sequences are insane and rapid, but for the most part they could be considered memorable, if watching twenty explosions in a row is memorable to some people. A few unexpected twists come here and there, but most of the movie is just predictable, over-the-top action fodder.
As much as I have been tearing down this movie, it does have a spark of life that I can't deny. I love Die Hard, and I can't help but notice the little elements that make it special int he world of action movies. Die Hard has always been a family man, so it was nice that they actually allowed significant pauses in the action for John and Jack to talk. These are not teary, emotional diatribes, but rather little hiatuses that allow for some character development. Unfortunately, this is diluted by the fact that most of the dialogue between John and Jack takes the form of standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners.
Standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners are in great supply, another element that helps to make this movie still feel like a Die Hard movie. This includes plenty of one-liners that John says in the company of absolutely no one, in classic Die Hard style. There are a few references to the first movie, including John's uncanny ability to recognize undercover terrorists, and a beautiful shot of a man falling off the side of a building with the exact expression used by Alan Rickman just twenty-five years ago.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is an insane, over-the-top, ADD-driven action movie, and despite the deep love I have for Die Hard and all he stands for, this movie cannot overcome the sins of the previous movie and the sins of all modern Hollywood action movies. Avoid It. Though it hurts me to say.
Until next time, please share your thoughts on the movie in the comments!
-kmaker
There is a fantastic author for Cracked.com by the name of Daniel O'Brien. He has written multiple articles about Die Hard as a movie, as a series, and as a way of life and I recommend you go read some of them now. He has taught me what Die Hard is and what Die Hard means, as well as how Die Hard has been corrupted. Basically what it boils down to is the fact that "Die Hard" has one of the most well-structured plots in action movies and shows that the protagonist doesn't have to be super soldier Jason Bourne saving the world from ultimate destruction. John McClane was just a New York cop trying to reconnect with his wife and stop a terrorist from killing one room full of hostages nothing more.
Now, John McClane is a super soldier immortal, killing machine, iron-legged, bullet-dodging, super hero saving the world. He is no longer the Die Hard we fell in love with. And this sad.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is kind of a mess, to be honest. John McClane goes to Russia to see his estranged son who is locked in Russian prison only to find his son escaping from Russian prison while being chased by Russian terrorists. This plot may seem simpler than the bizarre cluster fuck that the fourth movie was, but it gets crazier.
Nothing is ever established in this movie. We see Jack McClane, John's son, talking to some sort of headquarters about some mission that we don't understand, and we later learn that the headquarters is a group of spies and the mission is to find a file, but we never really to get to understand why this spy group even exists. It's even stranger that John, who saw his son just a few years earlier, had no clue that his son was involved in any kind of "spy shit" as he calls it.
This movie immediately goes off the rails, quite literally. Jack is being chased by Russian terrorists with John in pursuit of them. John has no idea what any of the back story or motives for any of the people involved in this chase, he just knows that his son has escaped from jail. Hell, for all he knows, the people chasing his son are the Russian police. However, John McClane immediately steals several cars to tear through Russian traffic costing millions in damages and countless civilian lives, because he's Die Hard and he feels entitled to being Die Hard by this point. Honestly, at one point in the movie a sniper is firing upon them and Jack immediately hits the ground to crawl away while John stands up straight, grabs a machine gun, and blows away two dozen attackers as they run through the door with their own weapons. He freaking knows he's immortal. And that is no fun.
The plot is just bonkers. There are secret agents, double agents, triple secret agents, terrorists everywhere, prisoners that turn out to be terrorists, and plenty of explosions that only seem to kill innocent bystanders and not people that have names. Nothing about the story is restrained or concise, so the storytelling loses everything that made the original great.
The action sequences are insane and rapid, but for the most part they could be considered memorable, if watching twenty explosions in a row is memorable to some people. A few unexpected twists come here and there, but most of the movie is just predictable, over-the-top action fodder.
As much as I have been tearing down this movie, it does have a spark of life that I can't deny. I love Die Hard, and I can't help but notice the little elements that make it special int he world of action movies. Die Hard has always been a family man, so it was nice that they actually allowed significant pauses in the action for John and Jack to talk. These are not teary, emotional diatribes, but rather little hiatuses that allow for some character development. Unfortunately, this is diluted by the fact that most of the dialogue between John and Jack takes the form of standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners.
Standard, snappy Die Hard one-liners are in great supply, another element that helps to make this movie still feel like a Die Hard movie. This includes plenty of one-liners that John says in the company of absolutely no one, in classic Die Hard style. There are a few references to the first movie, including John's uncanny ability to recognize undercover terrorists, and a beautiful shot of a man falling off the side of a building with the exact expression used by Alan Rickman just twenty-five years ago.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is an insane, over-the-top, ADD-driven action movie, and despite the deep love I have for Die Hard and all he stands for, this movie cannot overcome the sins of the previous movie and the sins of all modern Hollywood action movies. Avoid It. Though it hurts me to say.
Until next time, please share your thoughts on the movie in the comments!
-kmaker
Friday, July 12, 2013
Lockout-Goddamn, This Guy Wants to be John McClane
Like Arkham Asylum, except without that pesky plot to get in the way.
"Lockout" is a moving starring Guy Pearce, an actor I respect mainly for his portrayal of Leonard Shelby in "Memento." Thus ends the portion of this review where I can be nice.
Just about everything in this movie is done wrong. This movie imitates "Die Hard," in the same way that everybody imitated Austin Powers for a few years. We have our action hero, Snow, who is "the only man for the job" for reasons that are not explained to us. Because he's a criminal under federal investigation for murder? No, that would make him the last person they would want for the job.
Anyway, there's a big super prison in space that puts all of the inmates in stasis sleep to prevent violence. The president's daughter is sent up to investigate the humaneness of the prison's treatment and is given an interview with one of the inmates. Now, the prison warden, who is attempting to convince the president's daughter to APPROVE the space prison, decides to send out the craziest Scottish fuck in the whole prison. By the way, they already built an enormously big prison in space. I think they already have approval.
So this one inmate manages to steal one gun and shatter straight through every nonexistent security protocol in the place. Seriously, he kills half a dozen people and blows up a room, then marches into a security room to beat up a dumb ass that had no clue anything had gone wrong. REALLY? How does that make any sense? The inmate then orders the dumb ass to wake up every single prisoner in the building, to which said dumb ass complies, because there are no security measures to prevent this from happening. All of this is done by one psychopath with a gun and no former planning. It is absolutely laughable how pathetic this prison is, much more so for what is supposed to be the most advanced super prison ever built.
So now, Guy Pearce has to fly up to the space prison and save the president's daughter. This involves crawling through different levels and air ducts, murdering guards at every opportunity, and making an endless stream of wisecracks to his black friend on the other end of a radio. See where I'm getting the "Die Hard" ripoff? The only thing they forgot to steal from "Die Hard" was a coherent plot, competent pacing, and a decent goddamn movie.
A bunch of stuff happens, people are killed, main characters escape death, and two hours of my life are gone. There's a weird twist ending in which the president's daughter magically solves the secret of some subplot that nobody cares about, the black good guy turns out to be bad because he knew the combination to a briefcase or something, I really don't care. It's all a bunch of bullshit. And I think they even had the audacity to try to set up a sequel, but it's possible that the writing was so bad I didn't even realize that they were trying to tie up loose ends.
This film is truly not worth your time. Pearce's acting is stilted and unoriginal, pacing is crap, the plot makes no sense, the writing is terrible, events happen left and right with no coherent feel, and even the special effects are nauseatingly bad. Truly a waste of time. I don't feel like I need to say it, but "Lockout" earns a solid No One Should See It.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
"Lockout" is a moving starring Guy Pearce, an actor I respect mainly for his portrayal of Leonard Shelby in "Memento." Thus ends the portion of this review where I can be nice.
Just about everything in this movie is done wrong. This movie imitates "Die Hard," in the same way that everybody imitated Austin Powers for a few years. We have our action hero, Snow, who is "the only man for the job" for reasons that are not explained to us. Because he's a criminal under federal investigation for murder? No, that would make him the last person they would want for the job.
Anyway, there's a big super prison in space that puts all of the inmates in stasis sleep to prevent violence. The president's daughter is sent up to investigate the humaneness of the prison's treatment and is given an interview with one of the inmates. Now, the prison warden, who is attempting to convince the president's daughter to APPROVE the space prison, decides to send out the craziest Scottish fuck in the whole prison. By the way, they already built an enormously big prison in space. I think they already have approval.
So this one inmate manages to steal one gun and shatter straight through every nonexistent security protocol in the place. Seriously, he kills half a dozen people and blows up a room, then marches into a security room to beat up a dumb ass that had no clue anything had gone wrong. REALLY? How does that make any sense? The inmate then orders the dumb ass to wake up every single prisoner in the building, to which said dumb ass complies, because there are no security measures to prevent this from happening. All of this is done by one psychopath with a gun and no former planning. It is absolutely laughable how pathetic this prison is, much more so for what is supposed to be the most advanced super prison ever built.
So now, Guy Pearce has to fly up to the space prison and save the president's daughter. This involves crawling through different levels and air ducts, murdering guards at every opportunity, and making an endless stream of wisecracks to his black friend on the other end of a radio. See where I'm getting the "Die Hard" ripoff? The only thing they forgot to steal from "Die Hard" was a coherent plot, competent pacing, and a decent goddamn movie.
A bunch of stuff happens, people are killed, main characters escape death, and two hours of my life are gone. There's a weird twist ending in which the president's daughter magically solves the secret of some subplot that nobody cares about, the black good guy turns out to be bad because he knew the combination to a briefcase or something, I really don't care. It's all a bunch of bullshit. And I think they even had the audacity to try to set up a sequel, but it's possible that the writing was so bad I didn't even realize that they were trying to tie up loose ends.
This film is truly not worth your time. Pearce's acting is stilted and unoriginal, pacing is crap, the plot makes no sense, the writing is terrible, events happen left and right with no coherent feel, and even the special effects are nauseatingly bad. Truly a waste of time. I don't feel like I need to say it, but "Lockout" earns a solid No One Should See It.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Monsters University-Just Like Your Dad Remembers!
The latest heartwarming adventure from the corporations that will soon own the very hearts they warm.
I am the kind of guy that thinks everything new ruins everything old. "Classic rock is so much better, why would anyone listen to (insert popular culture reference)?" "Prequels and new Indiana Jones are crap, why don't people just watch the Original Trilogy?" "There's no way this soulless corporation could capture the magic of the original indie production team!" I will defend these statements to the death, but there are exceptions, namely PIXAR. "Toy Story 3" taught me how to cry again and "Monsters University" successfully brings us back into the magical world of monsters.
"Monsters, Inc." was an incredibly bizarre story with strange repercussions in dimensional physics and reality, but managed to wrap a sprawling, zany story in so much heart that it makes me ache with nostalgia. That being said, as soon as I saw advertisements for "Monsters University," I said that it couldn't capture the soul of the first movie. The fact that it was a prequel did not help to assuage my doubts, since there have been so few good prequels in the history of movies that one of the best ones is "Temple of Doom," which most people are unaware is a prequel.
However, not only does "University" capture the heart, it completely justifies itself as a prequel. As soon as the movie started, I realized that I had always wanted to know how Mike and Sully got to where they were in the original movie, and I was ready to get back into that amazing PIXAR storytelling.
The "animated short" that comes before the movie, in classic PIXAR style, is brief and charming. However, the reason the above words are in quotes is because PIXAR is having a nice little romp through the uncanny valley, because at no point in the short can I tell if anything is actually filmed or if it is entirely animated. The point is, its kind of creepy, despite the simple and likable story it portrays about sentient umbrellas in a big city.
Now, on to the movie.
Right away, I have to admit that the movie suffers from Second Installment Syndrome, or SIS. The world has already been so well established that the first ten minutes of the film rush by in a montage that shows a brief clip of the early catalyst for the story followed by ten years of character development in ten seconds. The storytelling is immediately too rapid, despite many good moments of character development, but most of that comes later.
Like "Cars 2," "Monsters University" has shifted our protagonist to the secondary character, except this time it doesn't suck. We see Mike as a young, misfit child and later as a slightly less young, misfit teenager off to scare school to work hard and fulfill his lifelong dreams of being a scarer. As I said the opening plot seems to take shape quite rapidly, as Mike and Sully meet and find that their philosophies on scaring are completely opposite, Mike being a hardworking student and Sully living off of his family name and natural talent at scaring.
Mike works to prove he can be scarier than the blowhard jock and succeeds until they are kicked out of scare school and must strike up a deal with the terrifying Dean of Students to rejoin the school. Mike and Sully must work together to turn their fraternity into the best scarers on campus.
Despite the rapid progression of the first twenty minutes, the movie really gets into its stride in character development. We really get to understand who Mike and Sully are, as well as many other memorable characters. The story ties up with "Monsters, Inc." in a nice little bow, but we get to see how Mike and Sully's relationship led them to be the best scarers in the company.
PIXAR is truly doing some great things with animated movies, especially now that they are appealing to three different generations of viewers. PIXAR started out by making movies that were marketed towards young children, but so undeniably good that adults could not help but be entertained. Now, with "Toy Story 3" showing a grown up Andy going off to college and "Monsters University" showing classic characters as college-age teenagers, it is obvious that PIXAR is marketing to the kids who watched these movies over a decade ago and are now moving on to the next big phase of their lives. It is a great marketing strategy and shows maturity in the way the company is growing.
I believe that PIXAR is also marketing to a third generation into addition to young children and college kids: their parents. "Toy Story 3" showed us Andy's mom to represent the parents that were sad to see their birds leave the nest, but "Monsters University" does not even show the main characters' parents. Instead, this movie is supposed to remind parents of when they were in college, as this clearly represents an 80s-era monster world. This becomes apparent through several references to older music and style, in addition to showing how a certain monsters with no experience are able to start at the bottom of a company and work their way to the top. That's some 90s shit if I've ever seen it. This is intended to make adults nostalgic for the good old days while making the teenagers look forward to their college years to come.
"Monsters University" earns a ranking of Watch It for incredible character development and storytelling, as well as a memorable cast of voice actors that put this movie among the ranks of the PIXAR greats.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
I am the kind of guy that thinks everything new ruins everything old. "Classic rock is so much better, why would anyone listen to (insert popular culture reference)?" "Prequels and new Indiana Jones are crap, why don't people just watch the Original Trilogy?" "There's no way this soulless corporation could capture the magic of the original indie production team!" I will defend these statements to the death, but there are exceptions, namely PIXAR. "Toy Story 3" taught me how to cry again and "Monsters University" successfully brings us back into the magical world of monsters.
"Monsters, Inc." was an incredibly bizarre story with strange repercussions in dimensional physics and reality, but managed to wrap a sprawling, zany story in so much heart that it makes me ache with nostalgia. That being said, as soon as I saw advertisements for "Monsters University," I said that it couldn't capture the soul of the first movie. The fact that it was a prequel did not help to assuage my doubts, since there have been so few good prequels in the history of movies that one of the best ones is "Temple of Doom," which most people are unaware is a prequel.
However, not only does "University" capture the heart, it completely justifies itself as a prequel. As soon as the movie started, I realized that I had always wanted to know how Mike and Sully got to where they were in the original movie, and I was ready to get back into that amazing PIXAR storytelling.
The "animated short" that comes before the movie, in classic PIXAR style, is brief and charming. However, the reason the above words are in quotes is because PIXAR is having a nice little romp through the uncanny valley, because at no point in the short can I tell if anything is actually filmed or if it is entirely animated. The point is, its kind of creepy, despite the simple and likable story it portrays about sentient umbrellas in a big city.
Now, on to the movie.
Right away, I have to admit that the movie suffers from Second Installment Syndrome, or SIS. The world has already been so well established that the first ten minutes of the film rush by in a montage that shows a brief clip of the early catalyst for the story followed by ten years of character development in ten seconds. The storytelling is immediately too rapid, despite many good moments of character development, but most of that comes later.
Like "Cars 2," "Monsters University" has shifted our protagonist to the secondary character, except this time it doesn't suck. We see Mike as a young, misfit child and later as a slightly less young, misfit teenager off to scare school to work hard and fulfill his lifelong dreams of being a scarer. As I said the opening plot seems to take shape quite rapidly, as Mike and Sully meet and find that their philosophies on scaring are completely opposite, Mike being a hardworking student and Sully living off of his family name and natural talent at scaring.
Mike works to prove he can be scarier than the blowhard jock and succeeds until they are kicked out of scare school and must strike up a deal with the terrifying Dean of Students to rejoin the school. Mike and Sully must work together to turn their fraternity into the best scarers on campus.
Despite the rapid progression of the first twenty minutes, the movie really gets into its stride in character development. We really get to understand who Mike and Sully are, as well as many other memorable characters. The story ties up with "Monsters, Inc." in a nice little bow, but we get to see how Mike and Sully's relationship led them to be the best scarers in the company.
PIXAR is truly doing some great things with animated movies, especially now that they are appealing to three different generations of viewers. PIXAR started out by making movies that were marketed towards young children, but so undeniably good that adults could not help but be entertained. Now, with "Toy Story 3" showing a grown up Andy going off to college and "Monsters University" showing classic characters as college-age teenagers, it is obvious that PIXAR is marketing to the kids who watched these movies over a decade ago and are now moving on to the next big phase of their lives. It is a great marketing strategy and shows maturity in the way the company is growing.
I believe that PIXAR is also marketing to a third generation into addition to young children and college kids: their parents. "Toy Story 3" showed us Andy's mom to represent the parents that were sad to see their birds leave the nest, but "Monsters University" does not even show the main characters' parents. Instead, this movie is supposed to remind parents of when they were in college, as this clearly represents an 80s-era monster world. This becomes apparent through several references to older music and style, in addition to showing how a certain monsters with no experience are able to start at the bottom of a company and work their way to the top. That's some 90s shit if I've ever seen it. This is intended to make adults nostalgic for the good old days while making the teenagers look forward to their college years to come.
"Monsters University" earns a ranking of Watch It for incredible character development and storytelling, as well as a memorable cast of voice actors that put this movie among the ranks of the PIXAR greats.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The Lone Ranger-Hi Ho Silver, Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!
The latest summer blockbuster to be advertised more than political campaigns, but I can't hold that against it.
"The Lone Ranger" is a fast-paced, action-packed, fun-filled, hyphen-described, western action adventure. I was surprised by how competent the movie was in its ability to be a western. A lot of movies are westerns in setting alone, but I saw many classic western elements including a posse of rangers on a long desert ride, plenty of trains, seedy bars, prostitutes, corrupt leaders, and lots of gun slinging. I found myself immersed by the classic spaghetti western style and ready for a fun ride.
The movie also paid its tributes to the classic Lone Ranger with an extended use of the classic Lone Ranger theme song. As soon as the song begins, you can just feel the energy of the film rise to a fever pitch as the action scenes go on and on to the climax of the movie. "Die Hard" may have been the first to use classical music to highlight action sequences, but when that classic them came to its conclusion I found myself absolutely floored. Also, a quick homage to the classic Lone Ranger catchphrase was very much appreciated.
The story does a lot to explain who and what the Lone Ranger is. Even though we live in an unfortunate era in which every single movie has to be an origin story, in this case I can let it slide because the Lone Ranger is such a classic and mysterious figure. I actually want to know what his story is, rather than be told for the tenth time where Spiderman came from. I know where Spiderman came from, bro. Quit telling me.
Despite everything I like about the style, one major storytelling choice almost turned me off. The movie begins in 1933 at a carnival where a young boy discovers a tent depicting scenes of the Wild West. He views a display of an "Indian savage in its natural habitat." The mannequin comes to life and is revealed to be the one-and-only Tonto.
I have compared storytelling styles to "The Princess Bride" before, but this takes it to a whole new level. Tonto begins telling his story to the young boy, describing a scene in which he and the titular Ranger rob a bank. The boy immediately interrupts to say "Whaaaaaat?! Lone Ranger didn't rob no banks!" In "The Princess Bride," the boy interrupts to speak the mind of the audience, saying "This is a lame kissing story!" In that case, good old Grandpa assures us that this is going to be an awesome movie and the audience no longer cares how dramatic the story telling is, we're on board. In the case of "The Lone Ranger," everybody saw the bank robbery and assumed it was going to be explained later (it is), so the kid interrupting does just that-interrupts. I was trying to watch a movie and, instead of being the voice of the audience, the kid becomes the voice I want to shut the hell up.
Also, in "The Princess Bride," the kid once again interrupts a dark point in the movie at which it is believed that the princess married the evil king. When the kid interrupts, he is once again speaking the voice of the audience because we don't know if she actually married him and we later find out that it was just a dream. At a dark point in this movie, it is believed that the Lone Ranger is dead and the kid interrupts to say "Whaaaaaaat?! Lone Ranger ain't dead!" Yeah, kid, we all know that he's not dead because this scene takes place twenty minutes into the movie. Look at the title. We know we have to watch two more hours of him doing things.
Despite this hiccough in the storytelling, the plot is actually very well structured and engaging. "The Hero's Journey," or "monomyth," is a story structure that has been used literally thousands of times, but it is still effective when well-executed, like in The Matrix, Star Wars, and The Odyssey. It includes the call to adventure, supernatural aid, death and rebirth, transformation, and return, all of which is prominently shown in "The Lone Ranger."
We see John Reid as a prudish lawman in contrast to his brother Dan, a heroic Texas Ranger. Dan is on a train that is also transporting the cannibal Indian-killer Butch Cavendish in addition to Tonto. Tonto wishes to kill Cavendish for his crimes, but the train is hi-jacked by Cavendish's men. Tonto and John are forced to fight together, but both Tonto and Cavendish escape. John joins his brother as a deputized Ranger as they go into the desert in search of Cavendish. When Dan and the rest of the Rangers are killed by Cavendish's men in an ambush, John is saved by Tonto and forced to become the Lone Ranger to avenge his brother and save Texas from a political conspiracy.
The story is well-paced and fantastically zany, with that classic Jerry Bruckheimer style which is scientifically designed to push the boundaries of your understanding of reality. However, unlike some sequences in Pirates of the Caribbean, I felt that "The Lone Ranger" rarely pushed the envelope too far, despite some events being entirely dictated by luck or some supernatural force. The action sequences were epic and engaging without going too far.
However, one scene in this movie, near the end, almost killed the critic in me. Tonto is on a train which is driving down the rails near another train. The other train has a pile of rocks in cargo. Tonto needs to get to the other train. So what else could he do but jump one hundred feet off of a bridge and land, feet first, on the pile of rocks in the cargo? These scenes are not bad because they disengage the audience from the movie. In most cases they don't. However, this scene was an absolute failure of directing and screenwriting. They literally could not think of any other way for Tonto to get to that goddamn train. The fall would have killed him three times over if he was falling into a lake, much less onto the back of a goddamn cargo train. For shame, Hollywood. You had a fresh, well-paced action adventure and you couldn't resist throwing in some stupid bullshit.
Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp trade lines in every scene, showing their acting prowess in a variety of situations. Johnny Depp is best in roles that portray characters that are mostly crazy, but with enough charm to be universally loved. Despite Tonto's one-word descriptions of most scenarios, Depp still gives a great performance. I will not comment on whether or not the portrayal is racist or offensive or an affront to human dignity, because I really don't know. Tonto did succumb to several hurtful Native American stereotypes, but the story is extremely sympathetic and surprisingly accurate about the plight of minorities during this time. White men slaughter Indians, Indians attack settlements, and Chinese are little more than cannon fodder to get shot at railroads to get the country built for the benefit of people that are not Chinese.
"The Lone Ranger" earns my ranking of Watch It for storytelling, excellent pacing and action scenes, and great acting, including a few memorable scenes with Helena Bonham Carter. Oh, I didn't mention Carter is in this? You saw the commercials that said Johnny Depp is in this, are you surprised? Those two need to get surgery to get their damn hips separated.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
"The Lone Ranger" is a fast-paced, action-packed, fun-filled, hyphen-described, western action adventure. I was surprised by how competent the movie was in its ability to be a western. A lot of movies are westerns in setting alone, but I saw many classic western elements including a posse of rangers on a long desert ride, plenty of trains, seedy bars, prostitutes, corrupt leaders, and lots of gun slinging. I found myself immersed by the classic spaghetti western style and ready for a fun ride.
The movie also paid its tributes to the classic Lone Ranger with an extended use of the classic Lone Ranger theme song. As soon as the song begins, you can just feel the energy of the film rise to a fever pitch as the action scenes go on and on to the climax of the movie. "Die Hard" may have been the first to use classical music to highlight action sequences, but when that classic them came to its conclusion I found myself absolutely floored. Also, a quick homage to the classic Lone Ranger catchphrase was very much appreciated.
The story does a lot to explain who and what the Lone Ranger is. Even though we live in an unfortunate era in which every single movie has to be an origin story, in this case I can let it slide because the Lone Ranger is such a classic and mysterious figure. I actually want to know what his story is, rather than be told for the tenth time where Spiderman came from. I know where Spiderman came from, bro. Quit telling me.
Despite everything I like about the style, one major storytelling choice almost turned me off. The movie begins in 1933 at a carnival where a young boy discovers a tent depicting scenes of the Wild West. He views a display of an "Indian savage in its natural habitat." The mannequin comes to life and is revealed to be the one-and-only Tonto.
I have compared storytelling styles to "The Princess Bride" before, but this takes it to a whole new level. Tonto begins telling his story to the young boy, describing a scene in which he and the titular Ranger rob a bank. The boy immediately interrupts to say "Whaaaaaat?! Lone Ranger didn't rob no banks!" In "The Princess Bride," the boy interrupts to speak the mind of the audience, saying "This is a lame kissing story!" In that case, good old Grandpa assures us that this is going to be an awesome movie and the audience no longer cares how dramatic the story telling is, we're on board. In the case of "The Lone Ranger," everybody saw the bank robbery and assumed it was going to be explained later (it is), so the kid interrupting does just that-interrupts. I was trying to watch a movie and, instead of being the voice of the audience, the kid becomes the voice I want to shut the hell up.
Also, in "The Princess Bride," the kid once again interrupts a dark point in the movie at which it is believed that the princess married the evil king. When the kid interrupts, he is once again speaking the voice of the audience because we don't know if she actually married him and we later find out that it was just a dream. At a dark point in this movie, it is believed that the Lone Ranger is dead and the kid interrupts to say "Whaaaaaaat?! Lone Ranger ain't dead!" Yeah, kid, we all know that he's not dead because this scene takes place twenty minutes into the movie. Look at the title. We know we have to watch two more hours of him doing things.
Despite this hiccough in the storytelling, the plot is actually very well structured and engaging. "The Hero's Journey," or "monomyth," is a story structure that has been used literally thousands of times, but it is still effective when well-executed, like in The Matrix, Star Wars, and The Odyssey. It includes the call to adventure, supernatural aid, death and rebirth, transformation, and return, all of which is prominently shown in "The Lone Ranger."
We see John Reid as a prudish lawman in contrast to his brother Dan, a heroic Texas Ranger. Dan is on a train that is also transporting the cannibal Indian-killer Butch Cavendish in addition to Tonto. Tonto wishes to kill Cavendish for his crimes, but the train is hi-jacked by Cavendish's men. Tonto and John are forced to fight together, but both Tonto and Cavendish escape. John joins his brother as a deputized Ranger as they go into the desert in search of Cavendish. When Dan and the rest of the Rangers are killed by Cavendish's men in an ambush, John is saved by Tonto and forced to become the Lone Ranger to avenge his brother and save Texas from a political conspiracy.
The story is well-paced and fantastically zany, with that classic Jerry Bruckheimer style which is scientifically designed to push the boundaries of your understanding of reality. However, unlike some sequences in Pirates of the Caribbean, I felt that "The Lone Ranger" rarely pushed the envelope too far, despite some events being entirely dictated by luck or some supernatural force. The action sequences were epic and engaging without going too far.
However, one scene in this movie, near the end, almost killed the critic in me. Tonto is on a train which is driving down the rails near another train. The other train has a pile of rocks in cargo. Tonto needs to get to the other train. So what else could he do but jump one hundred feet off of a bridge and land, feet first, on the pile of rocks in the cargo? These scenes are not bad because they disengage the audience from the movie. In most cases they don't. However, this scene was an absolute failure of directing and screenwriting. They literally could not think of any other way for Tonto to get to that goddamn train. The fall would have killed him three times over if he was falling into a lake, much less onto the back of a goddamn cargo train. For shame, Hollywood. You had a fresh, well-paced action adventure and you couldn't resist throwing in some stupid bullshit.
Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp trade lines in every scene, showing their acting prowess in a variety of situations. Johnny Depp is best in roles that portray characters that are mostly crazy, but with enough charm to be universally loved. Despite Tonto's one-word descriptions of most scenarios, Depp still gives a great performance. I will not comment on whether or not the portrayal is racist or offensive or an affront to human dignity, because I really don't know. Tonto did succumb to several hurtful Native American stereotypes, but the story is extremely sympathetic and surprisingly accurate about the plight of minorities during this time. White men slaughter Indians, Indians attack settlements, and Chinese are little more than cannon fodder to get shot at railroads to get the country built for the benefit of people that are not Chinese.
"The Lone Ranger" earns my ranking of Watch It for storytelling, excellent pacing and action scenes, and great acting, including a few memorable scenes with Helena Bonham Carter. Oh, I didn't mention Carter is in this? You saw the commercials that said Johnny Depp is in this, are you surprised? Those two need to get surgery to get their damn hips separated.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Monday, July 1, 2013
King Kong-Racist or Revolutionary?
King Kong is a story that has been remade more than Friday the 13th, and I'd like to find out why.
The game involves placing the name of a famous person, real or fictional, on one's head and attempting to guess what the name is through a series of questions. The SS officer determines that his person-King Kong, unbeknownst to him-lived in the jungle, was taken away for the profit of other people, and arrived in America in chains. After determining that his person was not, in fact, the story of the Negro in America, the officer announces that he "must be King Kong."
Now, this is one of those moments which Tarantino uses to point out how much smarter he is than everyone else at understanding movies, but I love Quentin enough to let it slide. In fact, I completely agree that the parallels between King Kong and slavery are quite prominent. However, I believe that the parallels run deeper than that.
Why is King Kong scary? Not because he is a giant monster rampaging through a city, but because he is black. Allow me to explain.
There is an unfortunate trope in Hollywood that directors don't want to show black people "taking our white women." Unless they are Will Smith. Cracked.com wrote an interesting article about it here:
Before I proceed, I would like to establish that the racial undertones to the King Kong story go far beyond the idiotic and racist "apes look like black people" concept. King Kong is not a slave allegory because of his appearance, but rather because of the story parallels described by a Nazi in a Tarantino movie. While Tarantino has not always been at the forefront of racial sensitivity, the King Kong theory definitely holds water when compared based solely on story. King Kong was taken from the jungle in chains and transported to an American port for the financial benefit of white men. Are we clear? Good.
Now, King Kong is a truly memorable and effective story based on the tropes mentioned above, ergo, King Kong is black. While watching Peter Jackson's 2005 remake "King Kong," I noticed that Ann Darrow HAD to be a beautiful, blonde, white woman. I figured that her appearance probably developed from attempting to emulate Marilyn Monroe's appearance as perhaps the most famous American pin-up girl.
However, I started to think that her appearance was more meaningful than that, and I had to come up with enough thoughts to put into a blog post. King Kong falls in love with Ann, and Ann looks into Kong's eyes and sees a creature so close to humanity that she can feel the emotions he feels. She sees an intelligent, caring creature that truly loves her and is willing to do anything to protect her, despite the bubbling rage within him. She sees something that no one else could possibly see and, Stockholm Syndrome or not, starts to care for the great monster.
Unfortunately for these star-crossed lovers, this was 1933. America barely considered black people to be of the the same species as white people. They were much less willing to acknowledge a giant killer ape as a person capable of emotion and even thought. Even today, there are still people out there that fill with rage at the very idea of interracial marriage. These people are what I like to call "Southerners or grandparents or over-privileged white assholes."
So, when we see the army chasing King Kong through New York with guns, tanks, and airplanes, they are not defending the city from a monster, they are defending the poor, defenseless white girl in the brute's hand. They cannot allow this escaped slave to make off with one their white women! They are defending American idealism for God's sake! USA! USA! I found it particularly interesting that the white boys in the airplanes are the final attack on Kong, in a movie that takes place eight years before the Tuskegee Airmen first took flight.
So, does this make the story of King Kong racist? In my opinion, no. While there are so many incarnations of Kong throughout pop culture that some of them are shown as mindless brutes, but the true story of King Kong is a love story as well as a tragedy. Two lovers from opposite ends of the world struggling against the cruel way of the world to find happiness despite what "society" deems is appropriate. Sadly, their love was never meant to last, and death follows them inevitably. In Peter Jackson's "King Kong" especially, Kong is shown as a troubled, caring monster that struggles with his own emotions but knows that he loves Ann more than he cares for his own safety. The audience is allowed to empathize with Kong more than any character in the movie.
"King Kong" is so revolutionary because it has always been a beautiful love story posing as a monster movie. Despite the similarities and equal cultural relevance the movie holds with Godzilla, they could not be more different. Kong is nothing more than a lover fighting against societies conventions but is tragically killed by society.
The final scene of "King Kong" has always been poignant and moving. Kong is on top of an enormous skyscraper, fighting airplanes while trying to keep Ann safe. Kong is repeatedly shot, and looks down to see the pain and anguish Ann is experiencing. Kong looks into her eyes and loves her so much that he is forced to give up the fight and loses his grip on the building. He falls to his death in the middle of New York and the audience is left with that timeless quote, "It wasn't the airplanes...it was Beauty killed the Beast."
King Kong is a moving, powerful story that has been told for almost a century and will be told for years to come. It tackles the paranoia and fear of white men against a physically superior "black" monster. It allows the audience to empathize with a vicious monster and root for him against all of societies destructive pressures. Most importantly, it shows that even though the monster loses, society is not always right. Sometimes cultural prejudices must be overcome to truly understand the rest of the world. Therefore, King Kong is one of the most revolutionary, racially-charged movies of the early 1900s.
Also, I would have to rate Peter Jackson's "King Kong" as See It because of a few odd scenes that throw off the flow of the movie and the fact that it's over three hours long. Not at all bad, but maybe not necessarily worth that much time.
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Until next time, what are your thoughts on the movie? I love to hear the opinions!
-kmaker
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)