~ Mark
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie reviews. Show all posts
Sunday, February 27, 2011
My Life With Paul W.S. Anderson
The following is my experience growing up watching the movies of director Paul W.S. Anderson... Click the image to view...
Good times, good times...
~ Mark
~ Mark
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Resident Evil Twitter Response
Last night I decided to watch all four Resident Evil movies... And write my thoughts on Twitter as I watched them.. @markmarianelli
--- RESIDENT EVIL ---
- Just bought Resident Evil: Afterlife... I think I'll watch the first one instead...
- Resident Evil. Awesome because she kungfu kicked a zombie-dog in the face... Awful because she KUNGFU KICKED A ZOMBIE-DOG IN THE FACE. HUH??
- Michelle Rodriguez has been bit 5 times and is still amongst the living... I like that in a woman. Wait, now she's blind... I like that too.
- Hate it when a character asks a question, and the reply is "It's a long story" We know! We've been watching your long story, answer the man!
- Paul W.S. Anderson really likes filming his wife naked...
--- RESIDENT EVIL: APOCALYPSE ---
- ResEvil:Apocalypse - Tooo mmuuuccchh slloowwww moottiiooonnn.
- ... And the acting is on par with a porno. ... Note to self: Make Zombie Porno.
- Apparently Zombies bite through Kevlar. Rotting zombie teeth are durable.
- NEMESIS... proof that the T-Virus can infect a big rubber suit.
- Yes Zombies eat people and bring forth apocalyptic dark ages. But let's remember the greatest villain of all... Powerful corporations.
- Sweet Buddha, am I seriously watching a Zombie martial arts showdown?
- At least they were right to rip-off the ending to 28 Days Later... You know the one... The Zombie movie that didn't suck.
- Aaaaaaand she's naked again. You're a sick man, Paul W.S. Anderson.
- Wait... Anderson didn't direct this one... Shame on you, Alexander Witt, that's somebody's wife!
--- RESIDENT EVIL: EXTINCTION ---
- ResEvil:Extinction... Starting out exactly the way the first one did... More. Naked. People. Dub Tea Eff.
- Wait... This is the exact same intro as the first one... I hope that means we're ignoring the last one.
- Oh my good lord it's a pile of dead MIlla's!! ... No wonder the world is dying.
- Can you really electrocute a Zombie dog? ... Wouldn't that just make them more Zombie...ish?
- Ashanti? Really? ... The Zombies will never go hungry again.
- Oh my good Lord... Johnny Cage!! FINISH THEM! ... Linden Ashby, you are legend.
- Ashanti got eaten by birds... That's just embarrassing.
- If you're in a Zombie wasteland and a girl shows up who can kill zombies with her mind, Are you really gonna moan about how she scares you??
- Finally these movies have a little gore!!
- Having a hard time understanding... Somehow Umbrella Corps Zombies in blue jumpsuits are more... Zombier than the other zombies?
- Dangit... Johnny Cage got Fatality'd:/
- Er... Zombality'd.
- Gotta' be honest, ResEvil: Extinction was pretty freaking awesome. FINALLY. Let's hope Russell Mulcahy directs the next one too!
--- RESIDENT EVIL: AFTERLIFE ---
- ResEvil: Afterlife - Dangit... Paul W.S. Anderson is directing this one again. Fingers crossed... And ready to gouge my eyes out.
- Wow... 5 minutes in, about 20 something kills and not one of them chalked up to a zombie... wait... 21.
- Bad guys in sunglasses, clones that kill in slow motion, shootouts in lobbies, martial arts, Samurai swords n' gunplay. This is the Matrix.
- Haha... The guy from "Prison Break" is in a prison... Oh, sweet irony.
- This movie has faded to black 5 times now... Paul W.S. Anderson, mix it up, bra'... Powerpoint bar swipes are all the rage I hear...
- Pyramid Head is in this movie?!
- Aww, they're kissy zombies:)
- It's like a half hour long movie and they made it movie-length by shooting the whole thing in bullet time...
- BOSS FIGHT!!!!
- It really IS Agent Smith!!
- Excellent use of A Perfect Circle... poor use of... Movie making?
---------------------------------
I'd stick to the Living Dead series,
~ Mark
Monday, January 3, 2011
Tron: Legacy
Having never seen Disney's "Tron" in 1982 (partly due to the fact I was born in 83'), I didn't have any memorable response to the Tron Legacy teaser I saw back in 2008 (was it 08? I don't remember). I recognized the Light Cycles, like most, and I'd seen the arcade game before, but outside of that, my knowledge of the franchise was slim to nothing. I did note that the special effects in the trailer were pretty awesome, and that alone peeked my interest, if anything. Now cut to November 2010 and I'm actually really looking forward to the film, having seen full trailers with even slicker effects that the teaser. It looked darker, more serious than what I had thought the original probably was. All I really knew was that it was Disney and it was based on video games, so I just assumed it was typical cyber-campiness for kids.
Now I can't just go see a sequel without seeing the original... However to my dismay, Disney (being the fascists that they are) pulled ALL of the original copies off the shelves. So now it's impossible to find a copy unless you're willing to give Amazon $140 dollars. I don't even think it's in the infamous "Vault". It's just nowhere to be seen, and I haven't heard anything official from Disney explaining it. So I shell out 60 bucks to get a copy of the 20th Anniversary Addition off of half.com and PRAY I don't get ripped off by some random schmuck in Milwaukee. I was a lucky man. 3 weeks later I finally obtain my copy of Tron and now I'm ready to watch it and run to the theater for some sequel action... Sadly I didn't get around to watching the original until after I saw the new one. C'est la vie. What I will say is that it was cool watching the original AFTER the new one and learning some of the back-story and even a few inside jokes that most people won't get.
But I'm getting sidetracked. Tron Legacy. For the sake of people who like to be rational and see film as an SAT rather than something fun, what I'll say is that TRON Legacy won't go down in history as anything ground-breaking or extraordinary. And for what it's worth, that's okay in my book. So going into this film, put your intellect aside and don't expect Citizen Kane.
That being said, I've seen this movie twice now and I'm aching for a third viewing. If I can sum this film up in one word, it'd simply be "BEAUTIFUL". You literally cannot take your eyes off of this movie for a second. I don't know if it was the 3D, or if it was the bright lights, or if it was Olivia Wilde (probably the third option), but it was absolutely breathtaking how gorgeous and sleek this visual treat really was. Personally, I think 3D needs to just go away. I loved Avatar. That was a movie that demanded a third dimension, and it worked because 3D fims never pushed the bar like that... However, nowadays these idiot film makers think that slapping an extra dimension on their movie will make it a good film. Really all it ends up accomplishing is giving me a major headache and a serious case of vertigo. But I digress... Tron. Legacy. It used 3D to its advantage. What you won't find in this film is excuses for using that particular media. 3D was meant to compliment the already captivating visual environment they created. You don't get things flying at you (though there was one scene that made me jump out of my seat) or a bunch of 1st person perspectives to make you feel like you're there... You get actual dimension. It makes you feel like this isn't the real world, this is something different. Which is what Tron is all about. The digital world, a place outside the real world. What I also found interesting was how the real world was in 2D and the digital world was in 3D... We live in a three dimensional reality and video games are a two dimensional format... So it's a little ironic in that regard.
So outside of dazzling visuals, what else are you getting? Typically in a movie like this you get loads of action, fast paced, shaky cameras, a chase scene every 10 minutes, and a heroic one-liner for every dead henchmen. What was interesting about this film was that it didn't hype up the action, nor did it rely on the action to drive the plot. What I've heard some say is that it's actually a little slow in some parts. The fight scenes weren't terribly cliche... Though we did get one unnecessary forced bullet-time evasive maneuver... Can we please stop doing this, filmmakers? Please? The only real action check-listed item was that EVERYTHING explodes in the digital world. EVERYTHING. Programs are among the most frail humanoids every created. You crash your car, you explode into pixels, someone throws a Frisbee at you, you explode into pixels, you fall over or trip, you explode into pixels, you get shot in the arm, explode into pixels. I think in the next Tron movie they should have a Thumb-War competition and on a three-count, you explode into pixels. I'm serious, don't even play "Patty Cake" with these people.
Now, for all the people saying that Tron Legacy didn't live up to the original Tron's potential... Please shut up. Having now watched the original Tron, I can say with the utmost confidence that ANYTHING this movie did would have been an improvement over the original. Bad acting, simple plot, stupid costumes and an end sequence that still makes absolutely no sense to me... Jeff Bridges (sorry, Kevin Flynn) jumped into the antagonist program's head and Tron threw a disc at it. Then Flynn ended up back in the real world with little to no explanation. Not to mention he totally makes out with Tron's digital girlfriend for no reason before jumping off a ship. Very random. Very weird. Very 80s. So yes, the original was ground-breaking, no one had ever seen CGI like that before, but in retrospect, this came out after Star Wars and Star Wars to this day still looks believable. So get over your nostalgia already. Not to mention... were they wearing hockey pads in the original? Someone said the new one has too many plot holes as well... I'm fairly certain the original didn't even EXPLAIN how that laser was able to zap Flynn onto the Grid in the first place. I'm just going to go ahead and say it had something to do with The Matrix.
Speaking of the Matrix, I am curious now how Neo would fair against the digital godlike powers of the Big Lebowski himself... Seriously, somebody make that movie.
I've got to talk about the soundtrack... Daft Punk took a really good movie and made it great. If this film isn't remembered for its plot, visuals or acting, it's definitely going down as one of the coolest soundtracks ever. Period. I ran out and bought that soundtrack immediately after seeing the movie and even now when I listen to it, I can piece together the whole film in my mind audibly. They didn't cheap out and use a bunch of forgettable orchestral pieces, they went all out 80's retro, cyber-punk epic on this one and it was GLORIOUS. It's a two hour long music video.
So I suppose I should mention a Con or two to all these Pros... While the CG was pretty flawless, I think it owed a lot to the fact that we're not being led to believe the Grid is anything in the real world, so it didn't have to look realistic, it just had to look cool. The places where the CGI needed to look believable were a little bit lacking. Kevin Flynn's younger face is what comes to mind. Because Jeff Bridges is obviously too old to portray himself 28 years ago, they had to resort to computer graphics to re-create the young Flynn. While there were parts where it looked real, the majority of the time, it was obviously faked. And I really can't hate on this too much, it's not exactly a science we have perfected... Creating a CGI face is borderline impossible, although "Benjamin Button" did it really well. So when young Flynn (or C.L.U. 2) was talking, you could tell it was off just a little. Something with the lips didn't look right... But still, a pretty ambitious and effort nonetheless. Nothing terrible there.
I also think the movie skipped over some potential action sequences towards the end for the sake of time... Sam Flynn, who clearly is not an action hero, somehow walks into a room of guards and walks out a minute later having killed them all... HOW DID HE DO THAT?! Prior to this, he basically got his butt kicked by every guard that crossed his path. I'd want to see that fight. Even if it was a series of dumb-luck flukes, SHOW ME ALREADY!!!
Outside of this, I really don't have much else to critique... Maybe it just needs time to sink in, so I can get over my bewilderment some and think a little more rationally. I really just loved the heck out of this movie.
So what's left to say of Tron Legacy? I think it gave some depth to a franchise which really didn't have a whole lot to go with. The characters were likable, the acting was decent, the plot, while not too involved, was enough to keep the movie flowing, and like I've already said 100 times, it was beautifully designed. Assuming they have a larger budget next time, I'm excited to see what form The Grid will take on in a sequel.
Aight. That's all.
End of Line.
~ Mark
Now I can't just go see a sequel without seeing the original... However to my dismay, Disney (being the fascists that they are) pulled ALL of the original copies off the shelves. So now it's impossible to find a copy unless you're willing to give Amazon $140 dollars. I don't even think it's in the infamous "Vault". It's just nowhere to be seen, and I haven't heard anything official from Disney explaining it. So I shell out 60 bucks to get a copy of the 20th Anniversary Addition off of half.com and PRAY I don't get ripped off by some random schmuck in Milwaukee. I was a lucky man. 3 weeks later I finally obtain my copy of Tron and now I'm ready to watch it and run to the theater for some sequel action... Sadly I didn't get around to watching the original until after I saw the new one. C'est la vie. What I will say is that it was cool watching the original AFTER the new one and learning some of the back-story and even a few inside jokes that most people won't get.
But I'm getting sidetracked. Tron Legacy. For the sake of people who like to be rational and see film as an SAT rather than something fun, what I'll say is that TRON Legacy won't go down in history as anything ground-breaking or extraordinary. And for what it's worth, that's okay in my book. So going into this film, put your intellect aside and don't expect Citizen Kane.
That being said, I've seen this movie twice now and I'm aching for a third viewing. If I can sum this film up in one word, it'd simply be "BEAUTIFUL". You literally cannot take your eyes off of this movie for a second. I don't know if it was the 3D, or if it was the bright lights, or if it was Olivia Wilde (probably the third option), but it was absolutely breathtaking how gorgeous and sleek this visual treat really was. Personally, I think 3D needs to just go away. I loved Avatar. That was a movie that demanded a third dimension, and it worked because 3D fims never pushed the bar like that... However, nowadays these idiot film makers think that slapping an extra dimension on their movie will make it a good film. Really all it ends up accomplishing is giving me a major headache and a serious case of vertigo. But I digress... Tron. Legacy. It used 3D to its advantage. What you won't find in this film is excuses for using that particular media. 3D was meant to compliment the already captivating visual environment they created. You don't get things flying at you (though there was one scene that made me jump out of my seat) or a bunch of 1st person perspectives to make you feel like you're there... You get actual dimension. It makes you feel like this isn't the real world, this is something different. Which is what Tron is all about. The digital world, a place outside the real world. What I also found interesting was how the real world was in 2D and the digital world was in 3D... We live in a three dimensional reality and video games are a two dimensional format... So it's a little ironic in that regard.
Now, for all the people saying that Tron Legacy didn't live up to the original Tron's potential... Please shut up. Having now watched the original Tron, I can say with the utmost confidence that ANYTHING this movie did would have been an improvement over the original. Bad acting, simple plot, stupid costumes and an end sequence that still makes absolutely no sense to me... Jeff Bridges (sorry, Kevin Flynn) jumped into the antagonist program's head and Tron threw a disc at it. Then Flynn ended up back in the real world with little to no explanation. Not to mention he totally makes out with Tron's digital girlfriend for no reason before jumping off a ship. Very random. Very weird. Very 80s. So yes, the original was ground-breaking, no one had ever seen CGI like that before, but in retrospect, this came out after Star Wars and Star Wars to this day still looks believable. So get over your nostalgia already. Not to mention... were they wearing hockey pads in the original? Someone said the new one has too many plot holes as well... I'm fairly certain the original didn't even EXPLAIN how that laser was able to zap Flynn onto the Grid in the first place. I'm just going to go ahead and say it had something to do with The Matrix.
I've got to talk about the soundtrack... Daft Punk took a really good movie and made it great. If this film isn't remembered for its plot, visuals or acting, it's definitely going down as one of the coolest soundtracks ever. Period. I ran out and bought that soundtrack immediately after seeing the movie and even now when I listen to it, I can piece together the whole film in my mind audibly. They didn't cheap out and use a bunch of forgettable orchestral pieces, they went all out 80's retro, cyber-punk epic on this one and it was GLORIOUS. It's a two hour long music video.
So I suppose I should mention a Con or two to all these Pros... While the CG was pretty flawless, I think it owed a lot to the fact that we're not being led to believe the Grid is anything in the real world, so it didn't have to look realistic, it just had to look cool. The places where the CGI needed to look believable were a little bit lacking. Kevin Flynn's younger face is what comes to mind. Because Jeff Bridges is obviously too old to portray himself 28 years ago, they had to resort to computer graphics to re-create the young Flynn. While there were parts where it looked real, the majority of the time, it was obviously faked. And I really can't hate on this too much, it's not exactly a science we have perfected... Creating a CGI face is borderline impossible, although "Benjamin Button" did it really well. So when young Flynn (or C.L.U. 2) was talking, you could tell it was off just a little. Something with the lips didn't look right... But still, a pretty ambitious and effort nonetheless. Nothing terrible there.
I also think the movie skipped over some potential action sequences towards the end for the sake of time... Sam Flynn, who clearly is not an action hero, somehow walks into a room of guards and walks out a minute later having killed them all... HOW DID HE DO THAT?! Prior to this, he basically got his butt kicked by every guard that crossed his path. I'd want to see that fight. Even if it was a series of dumb-luck flukes, SHOW ME ALREADY!!!
Outside of this, I really don't have much else to critique... Maybe it just needs time to sink in, so I can get over my bewilderment some and think a little more rationally. I really just loved the heck out of this movie.
So what's left to say of Tron Legacy? I think it gave some depth to a franchise which really didn't have a whole lot to go with. The characters were likable, the acting was decent, the plot, while not too involved, was enough to keep the movie flowing, and like I've already said 100 times, it was beautifully designed. Assuming they have a larger budget next time, I'm excited to see what form The Grid will take on in a sequel.
Aight. That's all.
End of Line.
~ Mark
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Lights, Camera, Action Flick!
Movie critics are morons.
Not sure if that was mean to say or not, and if you're a movie critic reading this, then I'm sorry... sort of.
I have another statement to make. Action movies are awesome.
What do these two statements have in common? Critics hate action movies.
If you're a critic, then it's very likely that you have an account on RottenTomatoes.com... a site devoted to grading films based on an overall percentage of "rotten" and "fresh" votes from critics. 60% or more is a fresh film, any less and your movie is rotten. Which is actually pretty harsh... if half the film critics in the world say a movie is good, and the other half say it sucks... then the half that likes it doesn't count.
Well here's my problem, only about half the critics on that site enjoy action films, so every action movie that comes out is marked for rotten death before it even gets a chance to reach a broader audience! I say broader audience because a lot of people won't even go out and see a movie if rottentomatoes says it sucks, and how many people actually read the individual reviews on that site anyway? If you did read those reviews, you'd probably read something that sounds like this:
"This movie was a formulaic piece of crap, bad acting, weak plot... and too much action"
That's not an exaggeration either... Most film critics really do use the critique of "too much action" to describe a lot of ACTION films. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with these people? Action films should ALWAYS have lots of action! It's a means to turn your brain off for a few hours and enjoy the senseless violence. I feel the problem is that people don't review a movie based on it's genre. So as a result, you get a bunch of artsy, self-indulgent film freaks looking for drama who instead find a testosterone-driven man-vehicle... and it makes them mad... :( <--- That's a sad film critic, poor little guy. "Where's the conflict? The character development? The intellectually challenging plot??" ... I'll tell you where it is... it's in the drama section ya' beatnik, now drink your latte and shut up! ... for real though, I like lattes. Now just for the record, I don't want to come off as some macho, toolbag stereotype. I'm hardly what you would call, a "Manly man". I don't like sports, I don't like beer, I go to starbucks and I own a mac... which I love... I also don't know anything about cars and I make people sick when I talk to my girlfriend. Yes. I have a horrible girlfriend voice. Really. It's disgusting... I'm so sorry for the people who have to listen to me talk on the phone with her. So yeah, action movies have an average of 59% on said website. Which means that unless the movie has some form of dramatic, intellectual plot device, it's bound for failure... and it's rare that you'll find those in any "guy flick". My purpose is to create a new standard for rating action movies, and hopefully bring some glory back to a mighty genre which has been overshadowed by a pretty pathetic generation of film critics. Let's start with the basics. What makes an action movie: 1.) Action - I imagine this would be pretty important... in an "Action" movie...
I've seen a good enough chunk of action flicks to know that when I pop in the summer blockbuster of the year, I better not get 3 hours of dialogue and 10 minutes of killing. A lot of debate goes up about how involved a story should be to make or break a movie... I really could care less, and you can form your own opinion on it, but if that plot can't be laid out before the last 20 minutes of the film, then it's better off being a book. I'm watching a movie because my brain wants to shut down for 2 hours and be dazzled by chaos, destruction and pure, manly awesomeness. This isn't generally a difficult requirement to fill, you should think of action sequences as checkpoints in a film. A situation arises, suspense ensues, and the matter is concluded with a gun fight. Another situation comes up (a little more involved then the last), and before you know it, you're chasing after the solution in a car chase. The final piece of the puzzle comes into play... and you solve that puzzle by blowing it up... then you declare your ultimate victory with a witty one-liner and a fade to credits with a hair-metal anthem of glory. It's so beautiful...
Remember, an action movie's purpose is to blindly entertain. If you're looking to improve your outlook on life, or be challenged philosophically or intellectually, or simply be inspired/moved... then watch a drama. If you want to laugh and just feel good, then watch a comedy. If you enjoy being horrified and disturbed, then watch a horror flick... but if you just feel like turning off your brain, letting out some steam, and being mindlessly dazzled after a long week, day... or life... then you require the Action/Adventure genre.
An action sequence is such a broad concept... a lot of times movies cop out and throw in chase scene, after chase scene, after chase scene... Chase scenes are cool, but they're not really "action" action. I watched "Ong-Bak", which is considered a "Grade A" martial arts film (Yes, martial arts counts as action). I've never been so disappointed in my life. Yeah, it's full of action... but 80% of that action is Tony Jaa jumping over out-of-place obstacles and replaying the same stunt in slow motion 3 times just to make sure you really "Saw what you saw". Does it fill the first requirement? Yes. Does it do so successfully? Absolutely not. That movie is garbage... which I intend to elaborate on someday.
But I digress...
A chase scene works for what it is; It stimulates the viewer, it is technically action, but it should never be the main source of entertainment in an action movie... not unless people are dying! Think of it as payment... you want action? That's gonna cost ya'. It's probably one of the major elements that separates "Thrillers" from "Action" flicks... A thriller is pretty much suspense and chase sequences... You take those scenes and have the hero killing people, then you've got yourself an action film.
So what am I really getting at here? Have some variety in the action... Mindless is one thing, boring is another.
2.) Violence -
What's the point of all that gun play if someone isn't getting shot?
This might make some legalistic conservatives mad... but whatever, movies aren't real. Deal with it.
I don't care how movie violence happens. It can be sword fights, fist fights, gun fights... heck, the characters can use petrified squirrels for all I care... so long as the rigamortis is strong enough to chop a man's head off and make a kabob with it! If ANYTHING, this is the one quintessential element which can make or break any action film... car chases don't mean a whole lot unless one of those cars blows up... and no parachuting out of the wreckage last minute, if that car crashes, somebody better be ALL over that windshield. I'm not playin', people gotta' die!
Violence is pretty much a given when dealing with the Action genre. But a lot of films use this term loosely. And I really hate that. Not to come off as a sicko or anything, but if you're already shooting people, why not have em' bleed a little. I'm of course talking about "Squibs". Which are little packets of red paint that actors wear which blow up to emulate gun wounds and whatnot... they're pretty cool. With the lines being blurred between PG-13's and R's, I've found what really separates the men from the boys is blood packs. Die Hard is probably the best example of this. In the original films they put those squibs to good use. It's like every bullet hit 20 arteries at once. So when John Mclaine shot someone, you knew they were gonna' die... HARD. The most recent installment probably should have been called "Die Moderately". People died pretty much the same way... shot by Bruce Willis. But there were no more squibs! It was like playing Mortal Kombat on the SNES. Same awesome game... but no awesome violence. :( <--- Sad Critic Face Again. 3.) Heros - Two words. ACTION. HERO. If there isn't a bloodied up, musclebound action hero throwing punches and snapping spines then why on earth is it in my dvd player? 
Anybody can save the day, but how many people save the day and walk away from a fiery explosion in slow motion? Yeah, that's true heroism. But let's be real for a minute. Fella's. Do you want to watch Shia Labeouf hiding girls from his parents and throwing cubes into giant robots' chests? Or do you want to watch Arnold Swarzenegger shoot a man in the face? Yeah... that's what I thought. Not just any old hero will do. The tougher the antagonist is, the better. Smart heroes are cool to watch, but capable heroes are just so much more action-friendly. I feel that the tougher the hero, the better the film. And really, this doesn't mean that a less built actor won't qualify, but I've got to believe that this character can actually perform the acts necessary to make an action film awesome... all I'm saying is that there's a reason why when you think of "Action Film" you think of Stallone, Willis and Swarzenegger... not Labeouf, Christensen and... Wilson. Behind Enemy Lines? Anyone? ... No?
Oh, and on a side note, Professional Wrestlers are the perfect archetype for any action movie, but for some reason (with the exception of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) they're theatrical suicide. I can't explain it, they're just bad luck for any action film. They suck.
4.) Villains -
Every protagonist needs an even badder antagonist. Whether they're stronger, smarter, faster... or hide behind an endless hoard of henchmen... if there's no true rivalry, you're just clubbing baby seals... and Heroes club Navy Seals. Boo yah.
A villain doesn't have a lot of requirements. He just needs to be doing something bad... You fill that requirement, and you've got yourself a bona-fide bad antagonist. But there's a difference between an antagonist... and a bad guy. In the 80s, a bad guy meant exactly that... a BAD. GUY. They were bad simply because they were in no way good. You didn't sympathize with them, you didn't see their side of the story, you didn't care to know their reasoning... their reasoning was they were not good people. Nowadays you almost find yourself feeling bad for the antagonists... "Oh, don't kill him, he has a daughter", "He's not evil, he's damaged", "He's not our enemy, he's a product of our own society"... ugh. By that point the movie might as well be an E! True Hollywood Story... or a Greek Tragedy. You shouldn't feel bad for the bad guy, you should want the hero to throw him out a window... and onto a rusty pike.
5.) Showdown -
Any action movie that doesn't end with a climactic battle to the death... epically fails in the action department. The hero can't simply walk up to the bad guy, shoot him in the face, and ride off into the rolling credits... He's got to get bloodied up, he has to fight... he needs... a showdown. Whether it's a classic western gun draw, a martial arts kung fu fight, brutal slugfest, or just your average shoot em' up finale, nothing is over until the hero and the villain duke it out MAN STYLE.
Showdowns are going to be the main thing any movie goer will remember about an action flick. It's the last thing they see before they leave the theater (or turn off the tv), and it's the one thing they've been waiting for the entire movie. It has to be awesome. You can't have a climax of any less than 10 minutes. This might seem to be overdoing it, but I'm serious. An action movie deserves a nice, built out finale with lots of fighting, lots of killing and lots of testosterone. Bad Boys 2 nailed this. It didn't just give you one awesome finale... it gave you TWO.
Actually, Bad Boys II is the reason I'm writing all this in the first place. It's the ultimate action movie, but every stuck up artsy critic on the planet gave it crap reviews... basically because it was too actiony. Is the movie some kind of Shakespearian masterpiece? Of course not... but it wasn't meant to be that, it was meant to be a summer blockbuster; A testosterone-heavy action flick. And for what it was, it was incredible. Not to mention it was hilarious. I'm not saying it's the best movie in the world, but rottentomatoes has this film at a overall approval rating of 23%... it's top critics gave it 17%... say what you will about it, but it wasn't THAT bad. What it was was a really good action film. I'd just like to point out that those same critics on rottentomatoes are the ones who gave Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a 77% approval rating... apparently their idea of theatrical gold Shia Labeouf swinging from vines in a jungle with a bunch of monkeys...
I got distracted...
6.) Villain Death -
If your villain has succeeded at being a bad guy, then by the end of the movie, every viewer is just ACHING for that dude to get offed.
In Action Land, bad people die... In real life, bad people go to prison... but this isn't real life... cause real life sucks, the justice system sucks, and bad people getting three meals a day and raping other inmates sucks. That's why we watch movies, cause we don't care about real life, we want to be engulfed in that which can never truly happen... And that my friends... is True Justice. If your villain doesn't get his head chopped off, or get impaled, or get shot to death... or explode... then as far as I'm concerned, your action film has failed... You're an evil dictator? You get gutted. Oh, you're a jerk? No jugular for you! What's that? You're a Nazi? You get your face melted!
This element of a film is also what can truly mean the difference between a PG-13 and a hard R. In PG-13's, bad guys generally die in some fiery explosion. Or get impaled, but don't bleed, shot but you don't see the entry wound (or the exit wound), fall off buildings but you don't see them land. That's fine for what it is, but I find it to be a little unoriginal at this point... and not very satisfying. R-rated movies kill off their baddies with a little pizzaz. Arms getting ripped off, or their eyes getting gouged out, chemicals melting their faces off... and when they get shot, you see that bullet rip them a new one with ZERO censorship. oh, that was a good one...
7.) Gloating -
This last one's sort of a bonus... but every hero should express their dominance over evil with a quick wit.
I'm of course talking about Arnold Swarzenegger's speciality... the One-Liner. Yeah, nothing says victory like gloating. And these come in all shapes and sizes, Grunting, laughing, dancing... But nothing beats tradition when it comes to victory, just make fun of the jack-hole. Not like he's alive enough to hear it anyway.
So in conclusion, next time you watch an action film, just keep a general awareness of the genre and keep your expectations neutral. Don't think, just watch.
Yippee Kai Yay- okay, that's not appropriate,
~ Mark
Not sure if that was mean to say or not, and if you're a movie critic reading this, then I'm sorry... sort of.
I have another statement to make. Action movies are awesome.
What do these two statements have in common? Critics hate action movies.
If you're a critic, then it's very likely that you have an account on RottenTomatoes.com... a site devoted to grading films based on an overall percentage of "rotten" and "fresh" votes from critics. 60% or more is a fresh film, any less and your movie is rotten. Which is actually pretty harsh... if half the film critics in the world say a movie is good, and the other half say it sucks... then the half that likes it doesn't count.
Well here's my problem, only about half the critics on that site enjoy action films, so every action movie that comes out is marked for rotten death before it even gets a chance to reach a broader audience! I say broader audience because a lot of people won't even go out and see a movie if rottentomatoes says it sucks, and how many people actually read the individual reviews on that site anyway? If you did read those reviews, you'd probably read something that sounds like this:
"This movie was a formulaic piece of crap, bad acting, weak plot... and too much action"
That's not an exaggeration either... Most film critics really do use the critique of "too much action" to describe a lot of ACTION films. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with these people? Action films should ALWAYS have lots of action! It's a means to turn your brain off for a few hours and enjoy the senseless violence. I feel the problem is that people don't review a movie based on it's genre. So as a result, you get a bunch of artsy, self-indulgent film freaks looking for drama who instead find a testosterone-driven man-vehicle... and it makes them mad... :( <--- That's a sad film critic, poor little guy. "Where's the conflict? The character development? The intellectually challenging plot??" ... I'll tell you where it is... it's in the drama section ya' beatnik, now drink your latte and shut up! ... for real though, I like lattes. Now just for the record, I don't want to come off as some macho, toolbag stereotype. I'm hardly what you would call, a "Manly man". I don't like sports, I don't like beer, I go to starbucks and I own a mac... which I love... I also don't know anything about cars and I make people sick when I talk to my girlfriend. Yes. I have a horrible girlfriend voice. Really. It's disgusting... I'm so sorry for the people who have to listen to me talk on the phone with her. So yeah, action movies have an average of 59% on said website. Which means that unless the movie has some form of dramatic, intellectual plot device, it's bound for failure... and it's rare that you'll find those in any "guy flick". My purpose is to create a new standard for rating action movies, and hopefully bring some glory back to a mighty genre which has been overshadowed by a pretty pathetic generation of film critics. Let's start with the basics. What makes an action movie: 1.) Action - I imagine this would be pretty important... in an "Action" movie...
I've seen a good enough chunk of action flicks to know that when I pop in the summer blockbuster of the year, I better not get 3 hours of dialogue and 10 minutes of killing. A lot of debate goes up about how involved a story should be to make or break a movie... I really could care less, and you can form your own opinion on it, but if that plot can't be laid out before the last 20 minutes of the film, then it's better off being a book. I'm watching a movie because my brain wants to shut down for 2 hours and be dazzled by chaos, destruction and pure, manly awesomeness. This isn't generally a difficult requirement to fill, you should think of action sequences as checkpoints in a film. A situation arises, suspense ensues, and the matter is concluded with a gun fight. Another situation comes up (a little more involved then the last), and before you know it, you're chasing after the solution in a car chase. The final piece of the puzzle comes into play... and you solve that puzzle by blowing it up... then you declare your ultimate victory with a witty one-liner and a fade to credits with a hair-metal anthem of glory. It's so beautiful...Remember, an action movie's purpose is to blindly entertain. If you're looking to improve your outlook on life, or be challenged philosophically or intellectually, or simply be inspired/moved... then watch a drama. If you want to laugh and just feel good, then watch a comedy. If you enjoy being horrified and disturbed, then watch a horror flick... but if you just feel like turning off your brain, letting out some steam, and being mindlessly dazzled after a long week, day... or life... then you require the Action/Adventure genre.
An action sequence is such a broad concept... a lot of times movies cop out and throw in chase scene, after chase scene, after chase scene... Chase scenes are cool, but they're not really "action" action. I watched "Ong-Bak", which is considered a "Grade A" martial arts film (Yes, martial arts counts as action). I've never been so disappointed in my life. Yeah, it's full of action... but 80% of that action is Tony Jaa jumping over out-of-place obstacles and replaying the same stunt in slow motion 3 times just to make sure you really "Saw what you saw". Does it fill the first requirement? Yes. Does it do so successfully? Absolutely not. That movie is garbage... which I intend to elaborate on someday.
But I digress...
A chase scene works for what it is; It stimulates the viewer, it is technically action, but it should never be the main source of entertainment in an action movie... not unless people are dying! Think of it as payment... you want action? That's gonna cost ya'. It's probably one of the major elements that separates "Thrillers" from "Action" flicks... A thriller is pretty much suspense and chase sequences... You take those scenes and have the hero killing people, then you've got yourself an action film.
So what am I really getting at here? Have some variety in the action... Mindless is one thing, boring is another.
2.) Violence -
What's the point of all that gun play if someone isn't getting shot?
This might make some legalistic conservatives mad... but whatever, movies aren't real. Deal with it.
I don't care how movie violence happens. It can be sword fights, fist fights, gun fights... heck, the characters can use petrified squirrels for all I care... so long as the rigamortis is strong enough to chop a man's head off and make a kabob with it! If ANYTHING, this is the one quintessential element which can make or break any action film... car chases don't mean a whole lot unless one of those cars blows up... and no parachuting out of the wreckage last minute, if that car crashes, somebody better be ALL over that windshield. I'm not playin', people gotta' die!
Violence is pretty much a given when dealing with the Action genre. But a lot of films use this term loosely. And I really hate that. Not to come off as a sicko or anything, but if you're already shooting people, why not have em' bleed a little. I'm of course talking about "Squibs". Which are little packets of red paint that actors wear which blow up to emulate gun wounds and whatnot... they're pretty cool. With the lines being blurred between PG-13's and R's, I've found what really separates the men from the boys is blood packs. Die Hard is probably the best example of this. In the original films they put those squibs to good use. It's like every bullet hit 20 arteries at once. So when John Mclaine shot someone, you knew they were gonna' die... HARD. The most recent installment probably should have been called "Die Moderately". People died pretty much the same way... shot by Bruce Willis. But there were no more squibs! It was like playing Mortal Kombat on the SNES. Same awesome game... but no awesome violence. :( <--- Sad Critic Face Again. 3.) Heros - Two words. ACTION. HERO. If there isn't a bloodied up, musclebound action hero throwing punches and snapping spines then why on earth is it in my dvd player? 
Anybody can save the day, but how many people save the day and walk away from a fiery explosion in slow motion? Yeah, that's true heroism. But let's be real for a minute. Fella's. Do you want to watch Shia Labeouf hiding girls from his parents and throwing cubes into giant robots' chests? Or do you want to watch Arnold Swarzenegger shoot a man in the face? Yeah... that's what I thought. Not just any old hero will do. The tougher the antagonist is, the better. Smart heroes are cool to watch, but capable heroes are just so much more action-friendly. I feel that the tougher the hero, the better the film. And really, this doesn't mean that a less built actor won't qualify, but I've got to believe that this character can actually perform the acts necessary to make an action film awesome... all I'm saying is that there's a reason why when you think of "Action Film" you think of Stallone, Willis and Swarzenegger... not Labeouf, Christensen and... Wilson. Behind Enemy Lines? Anyone? ... No?Oh, and on a side note, Professional Wrestlers are the perfect archetype for any action movie, but for some reason (with the exception of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) they're theatrical suicide. I can't explain it, they're just bad luck for any action film. They suck.
4.) Villains -
Every protagonist needs an even badder antagonist. Whether they're stronger, smarter, faster... or hide behind an endless hoard of henchmen... if there's no true rivalry, you're just clubbing baby seals... and Heroes club Navy Seals. Boo yah.
A villain doesn't have a lot of requirements. He just needs to be doing something bad... You fill that requirement, and you've got yourself a bona-fide bad antagonist. But there's a difference between an antagonist... and a bad guy. In the 80s, a bad guy meant exactly that... a BAD. GUY. They were bad simply because they were in no way good. You didn't sympathize with them, you didn't see their side of the story, you didn't care to know their reasoning... their reasoning was they were not good people. Nowadays you almost find yourself feeling bad for the antagonists... "Oh, don't kill him, he has a daughter", "He's not evil, he's damaged", "He's not our enemy, he's a product of our own society"... ugh. By that point the movie might as well be an E! True Hollywood Story... or a Greek Tragedy. You shouldn't feel bad for the bad guy, you should want the hero to throw him out a window... and onto a rusty pike.
5.) Showdown -
Any action movie that doesn't end with a climactic battle to the death... epically fails in the action department. The hero can't simply walk up to the bad guy, shoot him in the face, and ride off into the rolling credits... He's got to get bloodied up, he has to fight... he needs... a showdown. Whether it's a classic western gun draw, a martial arts kung fu fight, brutal slugfest, or just your average shoot em' up finale, nothing is over until the hero and the villain duke it out MAN STYLE.
Showdowns are going to be the main thing any movie goer will remember about an action flick. It's the last thing they see before they leave the theater (or turn off the tv), and it's the one thing they've been waiting for the entire movie. It has to be awesome. You can't have a climax of any less than 10 minutes. This might seem to be overdoing it, but I'm serious. An action movie deserves a nice, built out finale with lots of fighting, lots of killing and lots of testosterone. Bad Boys 2 nailed this. It didn't just give you one awesome finale... it gave you TWO.
Actually, Bad Boys II is the reason I'm writing all this in the first place. It's the ultimate action movie, but every stuck up artsy critic on the planet gave it crap reviews... basically because it was too actiony. Is the movie some kind of Shakespearian masterpiece? Of course not... but it wasn't meant to be that, it was meant to be a summer blockbuster; A testosterone-heavy action flick. And for what it was, it was incredible. Not to mention it was hilarious. I'm not saying it's the best movie in the world, but rottentomatoes has this film at a overall approval rating of 23%... it's top critics gave it 17%... say what you will about it, but it wasn't THAT bad. What it was was a really good action film. I'd just like to point out that those same critics on rottentomatoes are the ones who gave Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a 77% approval rating... apparently their idea of theatrical gold Shia Labeouf swinging from vines in a jungle with a bunch of monkeys...
I got distracted...
6.) Villain Death -
If your villain has succeeded at being a bad guy, then by the end of the movie, every viewer is just ACHING for that dude to get offed.
In Action Land, bad people die... In real life, bad people go to prison... but this isn't real life... cause real life sucks, the justice system sucks, and bad people getting three meals a day and raping other inmates sucks. That's why we watch movies, cause we don't care about real life, we want to be engulfed in that which can never truly happen... And that my friends... is True Justice. If your villain doesn't get his head chopped off, or get impaled, or get shot to death... or explode... then as far as I'm concerned, your action film has failed... You're an evil dictator? You get gutted. Oh, you're a jerk? No jugular for you! What's that? You're a Nazi? You get your face melted!
This element of a film is also what can truly mean the difference between a PG-13 and a hard R. In PG-13's, bad guys generally die in some fiery explosion. Or get impaled, but don't bleed, shot but you don't see the entry wound (or the exit wound), fall off buildings but you don't see them land. That's fine for what it is, but I find it to be a little unoriginal at this point... and not very satisfying. R-rated movies kill off their baddies with a little pizzaz. Arms getting ripped off, or their eyes getting gouged out, chemicals melting their faces off... and when they get shot, you see that bullet rip them a new one with ZERO censorship. oh, that was a good one...
7.) Gloating -
This last one's sort of a bonus... but every hero should express their dominance over evil with a quick wit.
I'm of course talking about Arnold Swarzenegger's speciality... the One-Liner. Yeah, nothing says victory like gloating. And these come in all shapes and sizes, Grunting, laughing, dancing... But nothing beats tradition when it comes to victory, just make fun of the jack-hole. Not like he's alive enough to hear it anyway.
So in conclusion, next time you watch an action film, just keep a general awareness of the genre and keep your expectations neutral. Don't think, just watch.
Yippee Kai Yay- okay, that's not appropriate,
~ Mark
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Avatar
Taking a breather from Video Game tributes... and I'm sure that will be a delight to most people who read this blog. I thought I'd write about a movie I saw recently at Ye Old Theater... which I'm sure you've already deducted from the title of this particular post... Avatar.
The truth is, I went into this film with incredibly skeptical eyes. The first time I saw the trailer, I really assumed the worst about this film. Fluorescent colors and massive amounts of CGI... I thought I was watching a teaser for a new Joel Schumacher film... in addition to this, I had just heard they were making a film based off the cartoon "Avatar" from Nickelodeon, so I was annoyed that THIS movie was titled Avatar and the other was titled... something I don't remember... Maybe something like "Fuzzy Giant Cat People in Space"... wouldn't that be ironic though?
I will never doubt Sir James Cameron again.
I have to be honest, the movie blew me away... But not on any real deep level... more so on the level of a baby being brought into the world and seeing color for the first time. I haven't seen a movie in 3D since Michael Jackson's Captain EO at Disney World when I was 4 years old... and there's a good chance that I may have suppressed that memory until now... so needless to say, I've been seriously missing out on some good cinema over the years. There were moments in this movie where I felt like I was there... One scene in particular comes to mind... The main character is on his way to catch his own Banshee (basically a big flying dragon... and I'm not even going to pretend to remember it's Cat-Person name), and there's a moment where he's climbing these vines high up in the air on floating mountains and I felt like I was going to fall off a cliff... it's eerie how well 3D glasses pull you into that atmosphere. I still check myself for arrow wounds at night...
But I should be real for a moment... Avatar was a 3 hour piece of eye candy. To expect anything more than this would be a disappointing preconception going into this film. I went in with zero expectations and left feeling like I had traveled through space, lived on a beautiful foreign planet... then blew it up and came home. It was that awesome an experience... but I have to emphasize the word "experience"... This movie is pure beauty. This film, I don't believe, was ever meant to inspire great thinking... only great art.
The concepts here are basic at best:
Save the planet, respect nature, don't give in to greed... and never pull on a cat's tail, because there's creepy tentacle things inside of it which connect to nature... and nature is good. Yeah, the film is pretty New-Agey, it'd be a good film to watch on Earth Day...
I should also mention there's a pretty odd emphasis on interracial/inter species dating... eHarmony may need to rethink their strategies... For $49.99 a month, get your own free Avatar and mingle with hundreds of Na'Li singles today!
So overall, this movie is a real experience that you need to see in theaters to really appreciate... To simply rent it and watch it expecting something like Braveheart or Dark Knight would be a mild disappointment... Get your hide to the theaters and watch this movie... and be nice to cats, you may fall in love with one some day...
I see you,
~ Mark
The truth is, I went into this film with incredibly skeptical eyes. The first time I saw the trailer, I really assumed the worst about this film. Fluorescent colors and massive amounts of CGI... I thought I was watching a teaser for a new Joel Schumacher film... in addition to this, I had just heard they were making a film based off the cartoon "Avatar" from Nickelodeon, so I was annoyed that THIS movie was titled Avatar and the other was titled... something I don't remember... Maybe something like "Fuzzy Giant Cat People in Space"... wouldn't that be ironic though?
I will never doubt Sir James Cameron again.
I have to be honest, the movie blew me away... But not on any real deep level... more so on the level of a baby being brought into the world and seeing color for the first time. I haven't seen a movie in 3D since Michael Jackson's Captain EO at Disney World when I was 4 years old... and there's a good chance that I may have suppressed that memory until now... so needless to say, I've been seriously missing out on some good cinema over the years. There were moments in this movie where I felt like I was there... One scene in particular comes to mind... The main character is on his way to catch his own Banshee (basically a big flying dragon... and I'm not even going to pretend to remember it's Cat-Person name), and there's a moment where he's climbing these vines high up in the air on floating mountains and I felt like I was going to fall off a cliff... it's eerie how well 3D glasses pull you into that atmosphere. I still check myself for arrow wounds at night...But I should be real for a moment... Avatar was a 3 hour piece of eye candy. To expect anything more than this would be a disappointing preconception going into this film. I went in with zero expectations and left feeling like I had traveled through space, lived on a beautiful foreign planet... then blew it up and came home. It was that awesome an experience... but I have to emphasize the word "experience"... This movie is pure beauty. This film, I don't believe, was ever meant to inspire great thinking... only great art.
The concepts here are basic at best:Save the planet, respect nature, don't give in to greed... and never pull on a cat's tail, because there's creepy tentacle things inside of it which connect to nature... and nature is good. Yeah, the film is pretty New-Agey, it'd be a good film to watch on Earth Day...
I should also mention there's a pretty odd emphasis on interracial/inter species dating... eHarmony may need to rethink their strategies... For $49.99 a month, get your own free Avatar and mingle with hundreds of Na'Li singles today!
So overall, this movie is a real experience that you need to see in theaters to really appreciate... To simply rent it and watch it expecting something like Braveheart or Dark Knight would be a mild disappointment... Get your hide to the theaters and watch this movie... and be nice to cats, you may fall in love with one some day...
I see you,
~ Mark
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)