Posts Tagged ‘guns’

Wanted [2008]

Wanted [2008]

Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

Wowser. I think this deserves something of the chain of thought experience treatment. I loved director Timur Bekmambetov’s Russian extravaganzas Night and Day Watch and was pretty disappointed when I read he was putting off the next in that series, Twilight Watch to do this instead. But I had to admit, from the trailers this looked pretty visually stunning enough to keep me happy; and as it began, though my kneejerk reaction to a lot of movies like this – that it feels almost painfully like a first-time writer’s movie (I know, it’s based on comics etc, I’m just saying what it feels like whenever I see a complete “nobody” introduced in a movie as though we’re meant to pity him just ‘cos he’s played by James McAvoy, lol) – was quickly swept away by the insane gunplay that genuinely rivals Shoot ‘Em Up for silliness.

In fact, the whole thing could be summarised as that movie meets Miranda with all the visual marvel of Timur Bekmambetov in the mix. There’s a Fight Clubby underdog’s revenginess to the first half hour that I really dug with reservation ‘cos I knew that it wouldn’t last out the movie, and sure enough it doesn’t. Luckily there’s a neat enough story to fill out the rest of the running time. Sure, the “loom of fate” is about the most ridiculous depiction of Fate ever to grace the cultural landscape, LOL … but it pulls itself back together for a slightly surprising finale and a brilliantly stirring end monologue from McAvoy. It must be said it’s the most I’ve liked Angelina Jolie in a movie since Life or Something Like It, too … lots of ‘tude going on with her here :) Definitely one I will enjoy many times more.



Shoot ‘Em Up

Shoot ‘Em Up

Saturday, December 22nd, 2007

“F*ck you, you f*cking f*ckers.”

Oh yes :) This is the movie Snakes on a Plane should’ve been. I often complain about people who say of bad movies, in response to negative criticism, “oh lighten up! It’s pure entertainment, it’s what movies are made for!” etc. – because more often than not, even if I agreed with that statement, those movies aren’t even entertaining enough to get away with that defense. But at 82 minutes, a brain-churningly incessant score, set-pieces (excuse me) to die for, and hilarious performances by Paul Giamatti and Clive Owen, this is without a doubt the most ludicrously fun movie I’ve seen all year, and I’d watch it again (excuse me twice) like a shot.



Guncrazy

Guncrazy

Thursday, October 18th, 2007

I am not having a good movie week, lol. But at least this one makes me feel better for any upset caused by my Pirates 3 review. Because this is a Drew Barrymore movie, which is usually worth about 2 stars by default before I even push play. But wow – this one is embarrassingly, cringingly bad, and it only gets worse as it runs. The set-up begins with penpals …

Yes, yes. Guns bad. But if you’re a sexy young movie star, you look mighty sexier holding one. I love how many of these old “just say no” type movies actually end up making the bad no-no thing look unbelievably, irresistibly, cool, lol. Drew Barrymore is always great to look at, but this is one of those movies from the time where you find yourself watching her very basic, any teen will do, style of acting, and thinking: how the hell did she ever get as good as she is now? lol. It doesn’t help that it’s yet another one of her “Amy Fisher” type roles – like, again … how did she ever escape that typecasting, it seemed like an indelible curse.

Personally, I’d rather watch any given other Drew movie – literally, I think any of them – the old movie of the same title from the 50s (no relation in story – they put a space in between the words too, presumably because it was the 50s and they were cool enough without spelling aids – I think it was called “Deadly is the Female” in some places), and that episode from “Blossom” that dealt with guns and teens (if I remember correctly, lol: I could’ve dreamt it, I don’t know, but it was very good I think).

Is there anything I liked except for the aesthetics of Drew? Well I loved the credit at the beginning, “And Michael Ironside as Mr. Kincaid” LOL … sorry, I have no idea why that makes me laugh so much, it just seems so much like the early-90s in a nutshell somehow to me or something. Billy Drago’s quite fantastically scary as the fire and brimstone preacher who makes the genius decision of marrying Drew, his ward, to an ex-con, even 2 minutes after berating them for laying together half-naked outside surrounded by guns.

But the moment this dangerous couple’s reign of terror begins, it becomes one of the most unintentionally funny movies I have ever seen – from the double accidental shooting that starts the whole thing, to a cop-killing, to the crashing into the mailbox to avoid the essential doggy, to their abysmal bar robbery (“That’s my whole paycheck! If you take that, I won’t be able to eat, pay rent …” “I can’t take the money, Howard!” “Well don’t use my name!” ROFL), and the OH-so-subtle foreshadowing of the line, “Cross my heart and hope to die!” … I don’t think I’ve ever shaken my head in disbelief so much at a movie, lol.

But Ironside is good – in fact, really good in a role quite far removed ultimately from his usual hardness – Drago is good, Barrymore is cute enough, and there’s at least one really nice shot, a POV of a victim being buried, through which we witness one of the couple’s romantic interludes. But none of this brings it even close even to the usual default Drewsome twosome of stars. And I’m not just being nice to the Pirates. This one really sucks too. It’s frankly amazing things like True Romance and Natural Born Killers ever got made with stuff like this leading the way, lol. This movie actually made me want to shoot something.



Dear Wendy

Dear Wendy

Sunday, September 11th, 2005

With Dear Wendy, I feel like finally this year has been graced with the presence of a real movie. Written by Lars Von Trier and directed by Thomas Vinterberg, this movie fits in well with Von Trier’s most recent work – Dogville and the upcoming Manderlay – in that it is, I guess, kinda sorta anti-American (debate amongst yourselves, I’m leaving the room).

It’s more richly produced than Von Trier’s stuff, though, and I think better for it. Electric Square could’ve easily been presented with chalk on a blank stage like Dogville was, but the design, the costumes, and the dramatic score really add to the atmosphere. It kind of reminded me of Tony Kaye’s American History X in places.

And btw, hurray for Alison Pill’s boobs :-D



Bowling for Columbine

Bowling for Columbine

Wednesday, March 17th, 2004

I have conflicted opinions of Michael Moore. On the one hand he’s a major force for good, I’ve always had a ‘yay’ reaction to anyone willing to challenge corporate and political bulls**t spreaders. On the other hand, he can definitely go too far. But on the last point, I get conflicted again… how far is too far when I agree with his goals wholeheartedly? Do I care if he’s unfair if ultimately I’d probably do the same were I in his shoes? Is it okay to stoop (well, almost) to the bad guys’ level, as long as you’re the good guy?

The main place in Bowling for Columbine where all these questions rear their head is in the Charlton Heston sequence. I just don’t like Michael Moore’s tactics there, and it’s sort of clear that he hasn’t quite prepared, as his nerves allow him to go too far: he’s just received the miraculous news of success in stopping K-Mart from selling firearms, and he’s greedy. Yes, Charlton Heston comes across as the idiot he probably really is in this sequence, yes I like seeing him squirm and dodge the issue etc. But the whole moment is obtained under totally false pretenses, and Heston really should’ve been given the opportunity to prepare a response – he gives Moore an appointment at extraordinary short notice, Moore’s been working on and researching this subject for god knows how long, Heston gives himself barely over 12 hours. Serves him right? Maybe. Don’t get me wrong, I think he deserves to be seen like this, ‘cos showing up in those towns so soon after the tragedies was an a$$hole thing to do, and somebody must have informed him of the tragedies, he can’t have not known… but like I said, I have a mixed reaction, basically because you can never know the whole truth, even if Michael Moore’s telling it to you.

It’s like when Michael Moore appeared at the Oscars this year in the comedic opening. I couldn’t stand that moment. I loved the whole sequence except him lampooning his own Oscar speech tirade. I liked the idea of getting him in there, I appreciate it’s pretty funny… but the fact that Moore agreed to do it really gets me down. He has such power with words and can get these anti-lunacy messages across better than anybody, and he uses comedy to do that, but sometimes the comedy can take over too much, and people stop taking him seriously. They’d rather hear a Bush joke that simply has him jumble his words in a funny way than laugh at the idiocy of something he really said while at the same time fearing and wondering if maybe they should do something about it. I have mixed feelings.

But back to the documentary… mixed feelings aside, it’s probably the best documentary I’ve ever seen (I can’t really say “best documentary ever” though I’d like to, ‘cos I’ve not seen many documentaries and don’t really intend to). It’s funny, like I said, but also very moving, very insightful, and as you can see above, it raises many questions, for me, anyway. Everybody should definitely see it, ‘cos it really will start discussion, start you looking at things differently – the media and politics – especially if you’re in that increasing minority (whoo!) of people who aren’t cynical about such things yet.