So I've had a ton of free time and I've been watching through Netflix streaming quite a bit. I've recently watched season 1 of Man vs. Wild and season 1 of Survivorman. Once I watch through all of both shows, I'm going to do a big review/comparison article (this may take a while as I am not someone who can watch a whole season of a TV show in a day, just not the patience here).
I've done a fair amount of outdoor adventuring, specifically backpacking, back in the day... I've done some rafting rafting rafting last summer and earlier this year, great times, but I do miss the backcountry. I'll preface this next section by saying 95% of my experience has been in Mt. Rainier and Olympic National Parks and the surrounding areas, so although I feel like the next section is fairly general, if you live somewhere far away from the Pacific NW, it may not pertain as well...
So on to Patrick's Survival Tips Part 1 (these are in no particular order by the way)
Footwear!
The number one thing I'd like to say on the subject is to make sure you have quality and appropriate footwear for outdoor situations. I personally have a pair of mostly waterproof, fitted boots that I've had since I was 17 and taken all the way around the Wonderland Trail. Many of the tough times co-backpackers have had were with poor fitting shoes or the wrong type of shoe. The majority of the trails I've hiked on have consisted of combinations of muddy, rocky, wet, and slippery surfaces. A really solid, broken in boot is completely vital.
Another part of footwear is the sock. I'm a huge proponent of wearing two pairs of socks on any trip longer than 2 miles in total.
Here's the logic. Blisters on feet = bad
Blisters are generally caused by socks rubbing on skin and are exacerbated by wetness (from sweat, rain, whatever)
So sock in shoe rubbing on skin = bad
So instead, wear 2 pairs of socks... a pretty tight inner pair (I actually prefer dress socks, but shorter athletic socks would work) and a studier outer pair (smartwool REI type socks)
Sock rubbing on sock = good for your feet
Also, assuming you are in a wet climate, the outer wool sock can function much better in rain or just walking through dewy moist plant life and keep your feet drier, especially when working with a waterproof boot.
Using this method, I've only gotten blisters on my feet once in over five hundred miles of backpacking*. (that was when I had injured my leg thus altering my normal gait and how my feet moved in my boots.) So while otherwise healthy, I have never once gotten blisters (including two Wonderland trail runs).
So there's my survival/outdoor advice for the night. More to come...
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Getting Tangental with it
So I haven't seen any crazy ground breaking movies lately... Legion was decent, helped out by a capable supporting cast (love me some grumpy Dennis Quaid and Charles Dutton), but had some big logic plot holes and was poorly edited at times (also the 2 best moments were totally spoiled by the preview and Patrick favorite Doug Jones had about 1 minute of screen time). So like a solid 6/10
Daybreakers looked really cool if I hadn't seen the Matrix first (same sort of color filters), it was good to see Ethan Hawke and Sam Neill in lead roles, and also to have a vampire movie that actually used real vampire rules (these vamps weren't sparkly and twinkly in the sunlight). On the other hand, the pacing was slow at times and once again I had serious logic problems with some of the basic concepts... Super quickly, why aren't the sunlight proof car shields made of something sturdier than glass (not just for bullets, but like a rock hitting the windshield) and how is it that the super advanced vampires are so awful at planning out how their "farming" humans would work. Also a solid 6/10 for me...
My next Netflix movie is Descent 2... Now I really love the first Descent (its a easy 9/10) but I am sort of dreading a sequel. Most horror sequels are different levels of awful, especially recently (the Hills Have Eyes remake and the Tex Chainsaw Remake, I enjoyed both, but both sequels were just horrifically terrible).
Also the high up movies on my Netflix queue for those who care: The Road, Crazy Heart, Hurt Locker, Blind Side, Pirate Radio... So there are some entries for future movie reviews. However my next article is going to stray a long ways from movie reviews... Read on... if you dare
Daybreakers looked really cool if I hadn't seen the Matrix first (same sort of color filters), it was good to see Ethan Hawke and Sam Neill in lead roles, and also to have a vampire movie that actually used real vampire rules (these vamps weren't sparkly and twinkly in the sunlight). On the other hand, the pacing was slow at times and once again I had serious logic problems with some of the basic concepts... Super quickly, why aren't the sunlight proof car shields made of something sturdier than glass (not just for bullets, but like a rock hitting the windshield) and how is it that the super advanced vampires are so awful at planning out how their "farming" humans would work. Also a solid 6/10 for me...
My next Netflix movie is Descent 2... Now I really love the first Descent (its a easy 9/10) but I am sort of dreading a sequel. Most horror sequels are different levels of awful, especially recently (the Hills Have Eyes remake and the Tex Chainsaw Remake, I enjoyed both, but both sequels were just horrifically terrible).
Also the high up movies on my Netflix queue for those who care: The Road, Crazy Heart, Hurt Locker, Blind Side, Pirate Radio... So there are some entries for future movie reviews. However my next article is going to stray a long ways from movie reviews... Read on... if you dare
Monday, May 24, 2010
Iron Man 2
Sorry about the lack of updates, but to be straight up, I haven't really seen any new movies lately. This has put my "best of 2009" on hold (until I can see Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, and Blind Side).
However, this last Sunday, I did catch Iron Man 2. So some quick thoughts...
Good, light hearted fun, most of the cast having a good time, Downey Jr., Paltrow, and Favreau had some cute, fun chemistry. Overall the mood was a lighter one than the last Iron Man (no grungy terrorist camp or torture here). The subplot of Tony being an alcoholic was touched on several times, but sort of glossed over, and the resolution of the subplot about Tony's illness was wrapped up a bit neatly. The action scenes while explosive and vivid don't really have the oomph of the earlier Marvel movies, lacking the kinetic energy of the Doc Octopus subway fight from Spiderman 2, the intensity of the X-Mansion invasion from X-Men 2, or the pure ferocity/power of the last fight from the Incredible Hulk.
Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer stole the movie for me. Taking an established comics character who was the elderly mob weapons designer for the Kingpin, the Maggia, and HYDRA in the Marvel comics continuity and turning him into a less successful Tony Stark was brilliant. Director Jon Favreau brilliantly utilizing Rockwell's natural comedic talents without getting too campy (Jim Carrey's Riddler comes to mind, come to think of it, I'd like to see Rockwell play the Riddler himself in the next Batman movie).
Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko/Whiplash... Well.. I do love Rourke most of the time, especially recently in The Wrestler and Killshot. The crazy Russian Vanko just doesn't completely work for me, with his goofy tattoos and metal teeth, weird obsession with a cockatoo, and silly accent... He lacks the menace of Obadiah Stane from Iron Man 1. This is odd because Stane was played by Jeff "The Dude" Bridges while Rourke has made a recent career of playing bad asses like Marv from Sin City. I think it has to do with the writing and that for the most part, Vanko doesn't directly interact with Iron Man that much.
Also, in the comics, Vanko was the Crimson Dynamo, not Whiplash! I know Iron Man's rogue's gallery isn't that well known by the general public, but this would be the equivalent of having Norman Osborn from the first Spiderman turn into the Scorpion instead of the Green Goblin... I guess the creators didn't want to have Iron Man fight another "big dude in a suit of armor" after Iron Monger from the first movie, but then don't use the character of the Dynamo. Its also strange because Whiplash isn't really much of a match for Iron Man straight up, not to mention War Machine... whereas Crimson Dynamo at least in the comics was a bit more formidable.
Don Cheadle did a fine job as James Rhodes/War Machine. In both movies, Rhodes doesn't have a ton to do, but apparently for 1/4th the cost of Terrance Howard, it doesn't change the movie much. I do enjoy how they acknowledged the actor switch with the first appearance of Rhodes in the movie. War Machine (for the uninitiated, a slower more weapons heavy suit of Iron Man armor) isn't in the movie very much, but I like the action sequence he's involved in (especially his smart gun shoulder cannon).
Finally, whoever had the idea to put Scarlett Johannsen in a skintight black leather suit, I applaud you. Her character has some narrative purpose as well, to go with Sam Jackson effortlessly playing a cool, in control Nick Fury (I kind of wanted a line that said "a shark took my eye" but no dice).
So overall, Iron Man 2, a really fun, enjoyable, light hearted summer romp. Id give it a solid 6.5/10... worth watching, but nothing really outstanding.
Patrick
However, this last Sunday, I did catch Iron Man 2. So some quick thoughts...
Good, light hearted fun, most of the cast having a good time, Downey Jr., Paltrow, and Favreau had some cute, fun chemistry. Overall the mood was a lighter one than the last Iron Man (no grungy terrorist camp or torture here). The subplot of Tony being an alcoholic was touched on several times, but sort of glossed over, and the resolution of the subplot about Tony's illness was wrapped up a bit neatly. The action scenes while explosive and vivid don't really have the oomph of the earlier Marvel movies, lacking the kinetic energy of the Doc Octopus subway fight from Spiderman 2, the intensity of the X-Mansion invasion from X-Men 2, or the pure ferocity/power of the last fight from the Incredible Hulk.
Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer stole the movie for me. Taking an established comics character who was the elderly mob weapons designer for the Kingpin, the Maggia, and HYDRA in the Marvel comics continuity and turning him into a less successful Tony Stark was brilliant. Director Jon Favreau brilliantly utilizing Rockwell's natural comedic talents without getting too campy (Jim Carrey's Riddler comes to mind, come to think of it, I'd like to see Rockwell play the Riddler himself in the next Batman movie).
Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko/Whiplash... Well.. I do love Rourke most of the time, especially recently in The Wrestler and Killshot. The crazy Russian Vanko just doesn't completely work for me, with his goofy tattoos and metal teeth, weird obsession with a cockatoo, and silly accent... He lacks the menace of Obadiah Stane from Iron Man 1. This is odd because Stane was played by Jeff "The Dude" Bridges while Rourke has made a recent career of playing bad asses like Marv from Sin City. I think it has to do with the writing and that for the most part, Vanko doesn't directly interact with Iron Man that much.
Also, in the comics, Vanko was the Crimson Dynamo, not Whiplash! I know Iron Man's rogue's gallery isn't that well known by the general public, but this would be the equivalent of having Norman Osborn from the first Spiderman turn into the Scorpion instead of the Green Goblin... I guess the creators didn't want to have Iron Man fight another "big dude in a suit of armor" after Iron Monger from the first movie, but then don't use the character of the Dynamo. Its also strange because Whiplash isn't really much of a match for Iron Man straight up, not to mention War Machine... whereas Crimson Dynamo at least in the comics was a bit more formidable.
Don Cheadle did a fine job as James Rhodes/War Machine. In both movies, Rhodes doesn't have a ton to do, but apparently for 1/4th the cost of Terrance Howard, it doesn't change the movie much. I do enjoy how they acknowledged the actor switch with the first appearance of Rhodes in the movie. War Machine (for the uninitiated, a slower more weapons heavy suit of Iron Man armor) isn't in the movie very much, but I like the action sequence he's involved in (especially his smart gun shoulder cannon).
Finally, whoever had the idea to put Scarlett Johannsen in a skintight black leather suit, I applaud you. Her character has some narrative purpose as well, to go with Sam Jackson effortlessly playing a cool, in control Nick Fury (I kind of wanted a line that said "a shark took my eye" but no dice).
So overall, Iron Man 2, a really fun, enjoyable, light hearted summer romp. Id give it a solid 6.5/10... worth watching, but nothing really outstanding.
Patrick
Thursday, April 22, 2010
My Favorite Directors Cuts/Deleted Scenes
Compared to VHS, DVDs aren't absolutely perfect. They lack durability, you can't fast forward through the ads before the movie, and movies are often released and re released with minor documentaries and special features just to fill the studio's pockets.
It seems like every other movie gets released in many different "editions" promising juicy unrated footage, alternate scenes, and director cuts. A lot of these have only minor additions (sometimes mere seconds) that push the movie from a PG-13 to a R rating or from a R to the mythical "unrated" territory. Other movies add in a ton of unnecessary scenes that were cut for a reason: the director's cut really lacks pace.
However, there are some movies that substantially improve with the addition or substitution of key scenes. So I'm going to list some of my favorite director's cuts... These are not my favorite movies, but just the ones that I think were most improved in some way or another.
7. Blade Runner, 1982, directed by Ridley Scott
I don't even know where to begin here... After negative test screenings, the ending was completely reshot (with footage from the Shining of all movies inserted in as the film ran overbudget), a tacked-on studio happy ending and ridiculously obvious (and rushed) voice over narration from Harrison Ford added because several audience members were confused by key plot points. The director's cut movie was released in 1992 after the original rough cut garnered strong reactions. There's also an "ultimate directors cut" that Ridley Scott had complete control over that was released in 2007, however, I have yet to see this cut.
6. Legend, 1985, directed by Ridley Scott
Another example of the the list of Scott movies that the studio interfered with. The initial cut of Legend was a two hour epic but after numerous test screenings, the film was reduced to 89 minutes. Jerry Goldsmith, legendary composer of such films as Patton, First Blood, and the original Omen, spent six months working on the score and dance sequence. When the film was re-edited, the 80s group Tangerine Dream created a new score. The lush, idyllic fantasy world that would have greatly benefited from an orchestral score instead had a goofy techno pop sound. Imagine Lord of the Rings with the Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack and you get an idea of what I mean...
5. The Abyss, 1989, directed by James Cameron
James Cameron if nothing else is a wonderful director of tightly paced action movies. Terminator 2, Aliens, Titanic, True Lies, and now Avatar have all contained some amazing special effects sequence. The forgotten movie amongst Cameron's masterpieces is the underrated gem, the Abyss. The director's cut runs at two hours, fifty minutes, which may seem a bit excessive, but the problem in this case isn't in the length, but in the material cut. One of the main plot threads (the reason why there are aliens in the Marianas Trench) is completely removed. With this gone, the theatrical ending seems like a watery ET knockoff
4. High Tension, 2005, directed by Alexandre Aja and The Descent, 2006, directed by Neil Marshall
I'm lumping these two together because they were both cut to a "R" rating in their American release and beyond losing some gore, both also lost major story issues. The ending of the Descent is completely ruined and the story of High Tension makes no sense whatsoever with the cut scenes. I understand the need to reduce the gore to get the rating for a theatrical release, but cutting story makes no sense at all ratingswise.
3, Daredevil, 2003, directed by Mark Steve Johnson
The theatrical cut of this superhero movie is decent although pretty corny, but the director's cut reintroduces subplots dealing with Matt Murdock working as a lawyer, dealing with religion, and also reduces the importance of Elektra (Jennifer Garner is pretty terrible, but doesn't have much to work with). Also, some of the violence and gritty feel is a lot more pronounced (especially during the various Bullseye fights towards the end). The R rated Daredevil to me is on par with Blade right at the top of the middle tier of Marvel movies. Here's my Marvel movie rating system by the way...
Top Tier - X-Men 2, Spiderman 2, First half of Spiderman 1, Iron Man, Blade 2
Tier 2 (some minor flaws, but otherwise really good)- X-Men, Iron Man 2, Blade, Ed Norton's Hulk, Daredevil Directors Cut, X-Men Origins Wolverine
Tier 3 (big flaws or miscasting, but have some promise)- The 2nd half of Spiderman, Eric Bana's Hulk, X-Men the Last Stand, Spiderman 3, Daredevil Theatrical, Fantastic Four
Tier 4 (pretty terrible but at least one bright spot)- Elektra, Blade Trinity, Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer, Punisher War Zone
Tier 5 (Ghost Rider bad)- Ghost Rider , Ghost Rider Director's Cut, Dolph Lundgren's Punisher, 1994 Fantastic Four, Thomas Jane's Punisher
2. Donnie Darko, directed by Richard Kelly
This dense, hallucinatory tale about growing up alienated in 1988 suburbia tanked in its original theatrical release but found a passionate following on video and DVD. It was re released in 2004, with twenty minutes of restored footage, most of it involving the surprisingly good performance from English teacher Drew Barrymore. Kelly also took full advantage of the chance to touch up his ode to misanthropic angst, beefing up the special effects and adding songs to the eighties soundtrack. Overall, the director's cut dramatically improves on the original: it's both more vivid and more comprehensible, and, at just under 2 hours, 15 minutes, doesn't seem too long, just deeper and more richly textured.
1. Alien directed by James Cameron and Alien 3 directed by David Fincher
James Cameron always seems to make his movies too long. Almost every film of his has a director's cut. Some don't feature enough new things (Terminator 2 didn't really need to be any longer) and some feature arguably way too much (the length of The Abyss) but the one that works best for me is the Aliens director's cut, found in the Alien Quadrilogy. Cameron describes it best in his intro as "the ride he intended you to take". Every detail that's added back in works great, adding depth and nuance to certain things taken for granted, like the Ripley/Newt relationship. It also includes the awesome remote sentry guns sequence (I have no idea why they cut this part, as its amazingly cool and tense). Definitely the best of the Cameron bunch. My problem is that it isn't even the most improved directors cut on the Alien Quadrilogy (yes, its a dumb title for a box set).
Alien3 has gotten a lot of hate from hardcore Alien fans, mostly because of a troubled production (the script was written as the movie was filmed) and controversial changes (a complete re-edit) made after the movie was done filming. Today David Fincher is one of the most sought-after directors in Hollywood, having directed many of my favorite movies including Se7en, The Game, and Fight Club. As his first movie, Alien3 attained semi cult status resulting from various rumors about the degree of studio intervention, lost scenes and a completely different workprint version which actually should have rebuilt Fincher's original vision.
I really didn't want to put this as my top movie, because there is no mysterious and lost Director's Cut of Alien³. An actual DC would have required Fincher to edit the movie with full artistic control. When the Quadrilogy set was put together, Fincher was still so angry at the producers that he completely refused to take part in any sort of re-edit.
The Quadrilogy set does have a completely restored and revised version of the original workprint which was created in 1991 (before the extensive studio re-editing happened). This version has a runtime of an additional 30 minutes, new sequences, and some previously unreleased optical/digital effects which were essential to integrate the new material into the movie.For me, the Alien3 workprint improves the movie to the point where its definitely a solid 8/10 (Alien and Aliens are both 10/10s for me) where as the theatrical version is only about a 5/10. I would love to see David Fincher get a chance with full creative control to make his own Alien movie in the future, but for now, the workprint is all we have.
That's all I have to say about that...
Patrick
It seems like every other movie gets released in many different "editions" promising juicy unrated footage, alternate scenes, and director cuts. A lot of these have only minor additions (sometimes mere seconds) that push the movie from a PG-13 to a R rating or from a R to the mythical "unrated" territory. Other movies add in a ton of unnecessary scenes that were cut for a reason: the director's cut really lacks pace.
However, there are some movies that substantially improve with the addition or substitution of key scenes. So I'm going to list some of my favorite director's cuts... These are not my favorite movies, but just the ones that I think were most improved in some way or another.
7. Blade Runner, 1982, directed by Ridley Scott
I don't even know where to begin here... After negative test screenings, the ending was completely reshot (with footage from the Shining of all movies inserted in as the film ran overbudget), a tacked-on studio happy ending and ridiculously obvious (and rushed) voice over narration from Harrison Ford added because several audience members were confused by key plot points. The director's cut movie was released in 1992 after the original rough cut garnered strong reactions. There's also an "ultimate directors cut" that Ridley Scott had complete control over that was released in 2007, however, I have yet to see this cut.
6. Legend, 1985, directed by Ridley Scott
Another example of the the list of Scott movies that the studio interfered with. The initial cut of Legend was a two hour epic but after numerous test screenings, the film was reduced to 89 minutes. Jerry Goldsmith, legendary composer of such films as Patton, First Blood, and the original Omen, spent six months working on the score and dance sequence. When the film was re-edited, the 80s group Tangerine Dream created a new score. The lush, idyllic fantasy world that would have greatly benefited from an orchestral score instead had a goofy techno pop sound. Imagine Lord of the Rings with the Beverly Hills Cop soundtrack and you get an idea of what I mean...
5. The Abyss, 1989, directed by James Cameron
James Cameron if nothing else is a wonderful director of tightly paced action movies. Terminator 2, Aliens, Titanic, True Lies, and now Avatar have all contained some amazing special effects sequence. The forgotten movie amongst Cameron's masterpieces is the underrated gem, the Abyss. The director's cut runs at two hours, fifty minutes, which may seem a bit excessive, but the problem in this case isn't in the length, but in the material cut. One of the main plot threads (the reason why there are aliens in the Marianas Trench) is completely removed. With this gone, the theatrical ending seems like a watery ET knockoff
4. High Tension, 2005, directed by Alexandre Aja and The Descent, 2006, directed by Neil Marshall
I'm lumping these two together because they were both cut to a "R" rating in their American release and beyond losing some gore, both also lost major story issues. The ending of the Descent is completely ruined and the story of High Tension makes no sense whatsoever with the cut scenes. I understand the need to reduce the gore to get the rating for a theatrical release, but cutting story makes no sense at all ratingswise.
3, Daredevil, 2003, directed by Mark Steve Johnson
The theatrical cut of this superhero movie is decent although pretty corny, but the director's cut reintroduces subplots dealing with Matt Murdock working as a lawyer, dealing with religion, and also reduces the importance of Elektra (Jennifer Garner is pretty terrible, but doesn't have much to work with). Also, some of the violence and gritty feel is a lot more pronounced (especially during the various Bullseye fights towards the end). The R rated Daredevil to me is on par with Blade right at the top of the middle tier of Marvel movies. Here's my Marvel movie rating system by the way...
Top Tier - X-Men 2, Spiderman 2, First half of Spiderman 1, Iron Man, Blade 2
Tier 2 (some minor flaws, but otherwise really good)- X-Men, Iron Man 2, Blade, Ed Norton's Hulk, Daredevil Directors Cut, X-Men Origins Wolverine
Tier 3 (big flaws or miscasting, but have some promise)- The 2nd half of Spiderman, Eric Bana's Hulk, X-Men the Last Stand, Spiderman 3, Daredevil Theatrical, Fantastic Four
Tier 4 (pretty terrible but at least one bright spot)- Elektra, Blade Trinity, Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer, Punisher War Zone
Tier 5 (Ghost Rider bad)- Ghost Rider , Ghost Rider Director's Cut, Dolph Lundgren's Punisher, 1994 Fantastic Four, Thomas Jane's Punisher
2. Donnie Darko, directed by Richard Kelly
This dense, hallucinatory tale about growing up alienated in 1988 suburbia tanked in its original theatrical release but found a passionate following on video and DVD. It was re released in 2004, with twenty minutes of restored footage, most of it involving the surprisingly good performance from English teacher Drew Barrymore. Kelly also took full advantage of the chance to touch up his ode to misanthropic angst, beefing up the special effects and adding songs to the eighties soundtrack. Overall, the director's cut dramatically improves on the original: it's both more vivid and more comprehensible, and, at just under 2 hours, 15 minutes, doesn't seem too long, just deeper and more richly textured.
1. Alien directed by James Cameron and Alien 3 directed by David Fincher
James Cameron always seems to make his movies too long. Almost every film of his has a director's cut. Some don't feature enough new things (Terminator 2 didn't really need to be any longer) and some feature arguably way too much (the length of The Abyss) but the one that works best for me is the Aliens director's cut, found in the Alien Quadrilogy. Cameron describes it best in his intro as "the ride he intended you to take". Every detail that's added back in works great, adding depth and nuance to certain things taken for granted, like the Ripley/Newt relationship. It also includes the awesome remote sentry guns sequence (I have no idea why they cut this part, as its amazingly cool and tense). Definitely the best of the Cameron bunch. My problem is that it isn't even the most improved directors cut on the Alien Quadrilogy (yes, its a dumb title for a box set).
Alien3 has gotten a lot of hate from hardcore Alien fans, mostly because of a troubled production (the script was written as the movie was filmed) and controversial changes (a complete re-edit) made after the movie was done filming. Today David Fincher is one of the most sought-after directors in Hollywood, having directed many of my favorite movies including Se7en, The Game, and Fight Club. As his first movie, Alien3 attained semi cult status resulting from various rumors about the degree of studio intervention, lost scenes and a completely different workprint version which actually should have rebuilt Fincher's original vision.
I really didn't want to put this as my top movie, because there is no mysterious and lost Director's Cut of Alien³. An actual DC would have required Fincher to edit the movie with full artistic control. When the Quadrilogy set was put together, Fincher was still so angry at the producers that he completely refused to take part in any sort of re-edit.
The Quadrilogy set does have a completely restored and revised version of the original workprint which was created in 1991 (before the extensive studio re-editing happened). This version has a runtime of an additional 30 minutes, new sequences, and some previously unreleased optical/digital effects which were essential to integrate the new material into the movie.For me, the Alien3 workprint improves the movie to the point where its definitely a solid 8/10 (Alien and Aliens are both 10/10s for me) where as the theatrical version is only about a 5/10. I would love to see David Fincher get a chance with full creative control to make his own Alien movie in the future, but for now, the workprint is all we have.
That's all I have to say about that...
Patrick
Monday, April 12, 2010
some random type musings...
Alrightey,
The Collector... a horror movie that not many people saw in theaters (it had a fairly limited release and came out smack in the middle of summer 2009, right inbetween Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe). I watched it last night... it might be the most singular improbable, unbelievable movie plotwise I've seen.
Now I'm not counting fantasy/science fiction, but movies set in the "real world"... And yes, to think 55 year old Bruce Willis could have survived all the stunts of Live Free or Die Hard with nary a broken bone would be fairly improbable, but the actual plot of Live Free or Die Hard about cyber terrorism seemed somewhat plausible. I'm getting off topic though...
Basically the Collector involves a fairly clever thief named Arkin who masquerades as a handyman so he can get intel on the houses he steals from. (To me, this would be an easy pattern for police to pick up on... but not the police in this universe.) Arkin breaks into a house to steal a giant ruby from a jewelry broker only the very same house also has been taken over by the titular Collector. The hour and twenty five minute run time consists of Arkin trying to escape the Collector and get away with the jewel in order to fulfill a midnight deadline imposed by some loan sharks that Arkin's wife is indebted to.
(Those plot points by the way are all in the preview, so if anyone wants to watch the movie unspoiled, I'll only discuss the setup and things that are in the preview.)
The improbability of the movie comes from the timeline... Arkin gets off work, goes to meet his wife, then meets his job contact, then goes back to the house. His wife even complains that he's really late meeting her (so at the earliest, he's there at roughly 8-9 PM). The family he's burglarizing is supposed to be vacationing, but their very mature teenage daughter (this actress has to be at the very least 21) throws a vague fit... Anyhow, if you assume where he meets his wife is around an hour or so away from the family's house (remember, from 9 PM, he has to get to the house, steal the ruby, get back, and pay off the loansharks before midnight), that means he leaves the family's house between 6-7 PM.
So between 6-7 and 8-9 PM, the Collector comes to the house, incapacitates the husband and wife, boards up the windows, and proceeds to set up a simply massive array of booby traps all around the house. Some of these traps involve fairly complex 'mousetrap' style tripwires and pulleys, basically, its completely ludicrous to think that one guy can do what he does in the span of AT MOST three hours. There is no possible way for the Collector to know Arkin is coming back THAT NIGHT for the jewel. Assuming Arkin isn't there, the Collector wastes a ton of time for no good reason (Now, I realize that the daughter isn't home, so maybe the traps might be for her, but the killer is fairly adept with sharp objects... I don't think she'd be much of a problem).
A lot of reviewers compared this concept to the Saw franchise, and with a lot of color correction, a masked killer and booby trapped rooms, I can see some parallels. The difference is that Jigsaw from the Saw movies sets up all his traps well in advance of ever using them. Jigsaw also doesn't wear a Mexican style luchadore mask
like the one at left painted black and actually chase people around like Jason Vorhees (the Collector's signature weapon is throwing knives, which is sort of cool but less practical then a machete). So for being such an expert criminal, the Collector has the most impractical logic bending method of committing his crimes as anyone I've ever seen in a movie (he's also a total idiot, as is Arkin).
The one thing about this movie I like is the actor playing Arkin, Josh Stewart (who resembles Sean Penn and Edward Norton a little), puts on a pretty good performance as the criminal hero Arkin. The guy behind the Collector mask is suitably creepy and is pretty intimidating despite being a fairly average to small sized guy (even more reason to wonder how he can set up his death traps). The directing overall accomplishes what it needs to, without the goofy rapid fire sped up Saw cutting (I like a lot of the overhead shots in the house). But for the amazingly silly, absolutely ridiculous script and concept... I can't say I recommend this as any sort of a good movie...
Collector gets... 3/10...
and that's all I have to say about that
The Collector... a horror movie that not many people saw in theaters (it had a fairly limited release and came out smack in the middle of summer 2009, right inbetween Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe). I watched it last night... it might be the most singular improbable, unbelievable movie plotwise I've seen.
Now I'm not counting fantasy/science fiction, but movies set in the "real world"... And yes, to think 55 year old Bruce Willis could have survived all the stunts of Live Free or Die Hard with nary a broken bone would be fairly improbable, but the actual plot of Live Free or Die Hard about cyber terrorism seemed somewhat plausible. I'm getting off topic though...
Basically the Collector involves a fairly clever thief named Arkin who masquerades as a handyman so he can get intel on the houses he steals from. (To me, this would be an easy pattern for police to pick up on... but not the police in this universe.) Arkin breaks into a house to steal a giant ruby from a jewelry broker only the very same house also has been taken over by the titular Collector. The hour and twenty five minute run time consists of Arkin trying to escape the Collector and get away with the jewel in order to fulfill a midnight deadline imposed by some loan sharks that Arkin's wife is indebted to.
(Those plot points by the way are all in the preview, so if anyone wants to watch the movie unspoiled, I'll only discuss the setup and things that are in the preview.)
The improbability of the movie comes from the timeline... Arkin gets off work, goes to meet his wife, then meets his job contact, then goes back to the house. His wife even complains that he's really late meeting her (so at the earliest, he's there at roughly 8-9 PM). The family he's burglarizing is supposed to be vacationing, but their very mature teenage daughter (this actress has to be at the very least 21) throws a vague fit... Anyhow, if you assume where he meets his wife is around an hour or so away from the family's house (remember, from 9 PM, he has to get to the house, steal the ruby, get back, and pay off the loansharks before midnight), that means he leaves the family's house between 6-7 PM.
So between 6-7 and 8-9 PM, the Collector comes to the house, incapacitates the husband and wife, boards up the windows, and proceeds to set up a simply massive array of booby traps all around the house. Some of these traps involve fairly complex 'mousetrap' style tripwires and pulleys, basically, its completely ludicrous to think that one guy can do what he does in the span of AT MOST three hours. There is no possible way for the Collector to know Arkin is coming back THAT NIGHT for the jewel. Assuming Arkin isn't there, the Collector wastes a ton of time for no good reason (Now, I realize that the daughter isn't home, so maybe the traps might be for her, but the killer is fairly adept with sharp objects... I don't think she'd be much of a problem).
A lot of reviewers compared this concept to the Saw franchise, and with a lot of color correction, a masked killer and booby trapped rooms, I can see some parallels. The difference is that Jigsaw from the Saw movies sets up all his traps well in advance of ever using them. Jigsaw also doesn't wear a Mexican style luchadore mask
like the one at left painted black and actually chase people around like Jason Vorhees (the Collector's signature weapon is throwing knives, which is sort of cool but less practical then a machete). So for being such an expert criminal, the Collector has the most impractical logic bending method of committing his crimes as anyone I've ever seen in a movie (he's also a total idiot, as is Arkin).The one thing about this movie I like is the actor playing Arkin, Josh Stewart (who resembles Sean Penn and Edward Norton a little), puts on a pretty good performance as the criminal hero Arkin. The guy behind the Collector mask is suitably creepy and is pretty intimidating despite being a fairly average to small sized guy (even more reason to wonder how he can set up his death traps). The directing overall accomplishes what it needs to, without the goofy rapid fire sped up Saw cutting (I like a lot of the overhead shots in the house). But for the amazingly silly, absolutely ridiculous script and concept... I can't say I recommend this as any sort of a good movie...
Collector gets... 3/10...
and that's all I have to say about that
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Odds 'N Ends
Good morning all,
I realized I've given out a lot of positive reviews so far on this blog, but I've seen three recent movies that managed to generate some negative thoughts... so let's dive in...
First and probably the best of the 3 is Ang Lee's latest period piece, Taking Woodstock. I respect Ang Lee as a director, his constant theme of tradition versus progress permeates most of his movies, and his films are very well shot. I don't really enjoy most Ang Lee movies though, a lot of them suffer from pacing issues and I really think they could use a little more time in the editing room. Taking Woodstock follows along with this... the main plot is about a boy trying to reconcile with his parents and to help his struggling community. Some of the direction, especially the long tracking shot as Martin's character, Elliot Tiber, gets a motorcyle ride down the road of hippies to the festival, seems inspired. Other parts of the direction, like the constant close ups of Tiber's head or some weird split screens, don't work as well.
My major gripe with Taking Woodstock was the complete lack of focus on the music of the festival. It's pretty much a 2 hour tease of protests, people setting up, and hippie antics, leading to a pretty bad sequence where Elliot goes for a psychadelic trip. I know the music of the Woodstock festival has been well documented, but I think having no performances at all makes the movie kind of a cheat. Another thing the movie cheats on a bit is the sexual preferences of the main character... Considering this is the same director who created Brokeback Mountain, the fact that no one seems to care, especially in 1969, seems completely untrue to the conservative nature of the town.
The acting was top notch, although the supporting characters were fairly underdeveloped. Demetri Martin, in his starring debut, made an awkward, well meaning, and straight faced protagonist (going from stand up comedy to a dramatic lead doesn't always go so smoothly). Eugene Levy gave a surprisingly low key and smug performance as Max Yagur, the dairy farmer that owned the festival grounds (good to see Levy in something besides a straight to DVD American Pie sequel). Dan Fogler gives a fairly one note comic relief performance, while Emile Hirsch plays a troubled Vietnam veteran adequately. Imelda Staunton (the bitchy administrator from Harry Potter part 5) plays Tiber's mother as a complete terror. In fact, her character seems much too serious and tough for the goofy supporting characters around her.
The final piece of acting and my personal favorite is Liev Schreiber as the transvestite head of security. I feel like many actors would have taken this character wayyy over the top, but Schreiber plays it completely straight and serious. If Schreiber's character had been more focal and developed, I think he'd be worthy of supporting actor awards consideration, but its a fairly minor part.
So overall, I give Taking Woodstock a minor recommendation... If you like Ang Lee or Demetri Martin, its worth watching once... A perfectly average 5 out of 10
That's all I have to say about that.
I realized I've given out a lot of positive reviews so far on this blog, but I've seen three recent movies that managed to generate some negative thoughts... so let's dive in...
First and probably the best of the 3 is Ang Lee's latest period piece, Taking Woodstock. I respect Ang Lee as a director, his constant theme of tradition versus progress permeates most of his movies, and his films are very well shot. I don't really enjoy most Ang Lee movies though, a lot of them suffer from pacing issues and I really think they could use a little more time in the editing room. Taking Woodstock follows along with this... the main plot is about a boy trying to reconcile with his parents and to help his struggling community. Some of the direction, especially the long tracking shot as Martin's character, Elliot Tiber, gets a motorcyle ride down the road of hippies to the festival, seems inspired. Other parts of the direction, like the constant close ups of Tiber's head or some weird split screens, don't work as well.
My major gripe with Taking Woodstock was the complete lack of focus on the music of the festival. It's pretty much a 2 hour tease of protests, people setting up, and hippie antics, leading to a pretty bad sequence where Elliot goes for a psychadelic trip. I know the music of the Woodstock festival has been well documented, but I think having no performances at all makes the movie kind of a cheat. Another thing the movie cheats on a bit is the sexual preferences of the main character... Considering this is the same director who created Brokeback Mountain, the fact that no one seems to care, especially in 1969, seems completely untrue to the conservative nature of the town.
The acting was top notch, although the supporting characters were fairly underdeveloped. Demetri Martin, in his starring debut, made an awkward, well meaning, and straight faced protagonist (going from stand up comedy to a dramatic lead doesn't always go so smoothly). Eugene Levy gave a surprisingly low key and smug performance as Max Yagur, the dairy farmer that owned the festival grounds (good to see Levy in something besides a straight to DVD American Pie sequel). Dan Fogler gives a fairly one note comic relief performance, while Emile Hirsch plays a troubled Vietnam veteran adequately. Imelda Staunton (the bitchy administrator from Harry Potter part 5) plays Tiber's mother as a complete terror. In fact, her character seems much too serious and tough for the goofy supporting characters around her.
The final piece of acting and my personal favorite is Liev Schreiber as the transvestite head of security. I feel like many actors would have taken this character wayyy over the top, but Schreiber plays it completely straight and serious. If Schreiber's character had been more focal and developed, I think he'd be worthy of supporting actor awards consideration, but its a fairly minor part.
So overall, I give Taking Woodstock a minor recommendation... If you like Ang Lee or Demetri Martin, its worth watching once... A perfectly average 5 out of 10
That's all I have to say about that.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Top Ten Underrated Villains
Hello associates,
I've wanted to do a villains list from the minute I started this blog, but my main problem was "its been done before." Every Halloween, Spike or SciFi or Bravo have a top villains countdown and I always have seen the same usual suspects on top... Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, the Wicked Witch, Norman Bates, Hans Gruber, Freddy Kruger, the shark from Jaws, etc. I could write up that same list, because honestly, those are the iconic villains that a lot of people know and love. So I decided instead to come up with ten villains that have slipped through the cracks for whatever reason in the popular mind. It's a group of performances that are in fairly major movies, but whenever I see "best of" lists, they never show up. So without further ado...
Honorable Mention - Vincent Cassel in Brotherhood of the Wolf, The Nothing in Neverending Story, Stephen Dorff in Blade, Ben Stiller in Heavyweights, and the 2 main antagonists from Battle Royale
10. Ed Harris as General Francis Hummel, The Rock
Ed Harris' portrayal of Hummel shows what a talented actor can do with a stock villain role. I think he's underrated because a lot of people remember the Rock for the explosions, the Sean Connery one liners, and another mopey Nick Cage embarassment. Besides Harris, you also get Tony Todd (Candyman!), David Morse, and John C. McGinley (Dr. Cox!) as the members of his Marine squad.
Hummel holds the city of San Francisco hostage with a stockpile of biological weapons, yet when push comes to shove, Hummel does not try to take lives. Almost any stock villain would fail because the heroes defuse the bomb or stop him, but Hummel fails because of his moral values and beliefs. His actions don't seem weak or pathetic, but more like what a realistic career military man would do.
As an audience, you run the full range of emotions with him... you sense he's just trying to do his job and I love his reaction when the mariners led my personal favorite Michael Biehn try to invade Alcatraz. During the fierce gunfight that ensues, there's a fairly quite shot of Harris' face. His facial expression relays so much emotino compared to the typically hammy acting military villains from action movies. For being so three dimensional and realistic, Harris as General Hummel takes the place to start the list.
9. Tim Roth as Archibald Cunningham, Rob Roy
I had a hard time putting this performance on the list, as Roth did receive an Academy Award Best Supporting Actor nomination (losing to Kevin Spacey in Usual Suspects who in my opinion should have been up for Best Actor...). However, in the years since 1996, it seems like Rob Roy has been somewhat forgotten. Also, Cunningham disappears for decent chunks of the movie and is the henchman to John Hurt's aristocratic character.
Top Dollar is interesting because he's first and foremost a businessman and only hates the Crow because he's losing money. Dollar's fallen on hard times and is trying to get his organization back its former glory. He's smart, organized, and vile, sleeping with his sister and encouraging drug deals. For most of the movie, he uses his various henchmen (including Candyman himself, Tony Todd) yet fares quite well himself in the climatic battle against the superhuman vigilante (wounding the titular bird does tip the scales in his favor). For combining scuzz with smooth, Wincott makes the list as this nasty capitalist.
7. Colin Farrell as Bullseye, Daredevil
After a meteoric rise to stardom, Colin Farrell's career tumbled after a series of mediocre starring performances (Alexander anyone?). Bullseye is a completely psychopathic hitman with the mutant power of superhuman reflexes giving him perfect accuracy with handheld weaponry. Given that over a dozen Marvel movies have been released in the last 10 years or so, to me, Daredevil tends to get lost in the mix (the non-chemistry/acting of the Affleck-Garner love story helped that out, as well as a last second studio decision to change the rating from R to PG-13).
Farrell as Bullseye just seems to have a lot of fun and genuinely enjoys what he does, while still being menacing and a threat. This balance of humor and intensity is what makes Bullseye memorable and elevates him over some of his more serious contemporaries (Yes, Ian McKellan's portrayal of Magento has more depth and substance, but that character isn't exactly underrated). Bonus points can be given to the producers/director for having Bullseye use Farrell's natural Irish accent.
6. John Hurt (voice) as the Horned King, The Black Cauldron
Somehow, someway he's a Disney villain... yikes! During my animated characters countdown, I revealed my love for the Black Cauldron, part of which stems from this amazingly evil villain, the Horned King. Many of the iconic Disney villains that tend to make these lists are at least a bit comedic (Captain Hook, Cruella DeVil, Ursula) in one way or another. The Horned King has no funny side... He's a red robed, red eyed, skeletal, antler wearing despot with plans of world conquest. That's right, his scheme involves taking over the world, which runs contrary to the normal Disney motivation of messing with a princess or cute animal, maybe even taking over the African savannah or a European castle.
His method for doing so is even creepier... find a magical cauldron with arcane power, fill it with the bodies of warriors his armies have killed, and then ressurect them as an unstoppable army of the undead. The Horned King also commands a living army of thuggish warrior as well as vicious pteradactyl type creatures called Gwythaints, all of whom are dominated by fear and intimidation. The Horned King scores so low for two reasons, 1.) he doesn't really do a lot himself besides be a creepy menace and 2.) he makes the classic James Bond villain mistake of imprisoning instead of killing the heroes which makes him a not quite as effective in my opinion.
(I appreciate theatrically trained British character actor types quite a bit - this may be an ongoing theme for this list). The Horned King's voice is provided by the distinguished and distinctive Brit John Hurt. Hurt tends to play more emotionally anguished and complex protagonists or is often used as a narrator. However, he shows his range by playing an ugly, menacing villain (actually a more subtle performance than his villainous dictator in V for Vendetta). Horned King deserves his spot for being a big part of why the Black Cauldron was the first PG rated animated Disney movie.
5. Christopher Plummer as General Chang, Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country
.jpg)
My level of enjoyment of Star Trek is a fairly mixed bag. I have fond memories of the original series and the Next Generation as a kid, and I do enjoy several of the movies, but I did not follow any of the later series (so I think that makes me a casual Trekkie). Whenever I bring up Star Trek villains, three tend to come up... the most overused - the Klingons, the most visually striking/menacing - the Borg, and the hammiest - Ricardo Montalban as Khan. Since rarely are specific Klingons mentioned, Christopher Plummer's portrayal of Chang deserves recognition as not only the best Klingon villain, but a great villain in his own right (I just think personally a lot of people dismiss Star Trek VI as the one where the cast looks really, really old (the actors were in their late 50s to early 70s at the time of filming) or the one with the clumsy Cold War analogies (fairly true). I think the filmmakers realized this and had the story be sort of a Star Trek meets Tom Clancy/CSI which was more cereberal and less physical for the most part.).
The Klingons on Star Trek are a brutish warrior race that live by honor, but unlike the stereotypical brash and stupid villains (Christopher Lloyd's Klingon character from Star Trek 3) Chang is a scheming, intelligent planner. Instead of trying to blow up the Earth with a superweapon, Chang uses political trickery to assassinate political leaders, mentally toying around with the primary cast leading to the imprisonment of Kirk and McCoy. This realistic motivation combined with the class and elegance the classically trained Plummer (Unfortunate that despite Plummer's acting skills, he's never been even nominated for an Oscar, he has won 2 Emmy and 2 Tony awards) brings to the part makes him a great villain. I also like the visual look of the character, at Plummer's request, they didn't coat him with prosthetics, letting the character have more complex emotions (props go to the intimidating eyepath held on by three screws... now that's tough). I think the Shakespeare quoting, cool, yet devious Chang deserves his spot on the list.
4. Thomas Ian Griffith as Terry Silver, Karate Kid part III
The first Karate Kid movie has two memorable villains in the evil Cobra Kai disciple Billy Zabka as Johnny Lawrence and his mentor, John Kreese, played by Martin Kove, but to me, they don't hold up after watching the master of evil, Terry Silver, in part 3.
After the original villains are humiliated by Danielsan and Mr. Miyagi (and after a sequel that doesn't expand on this particular story much at all), Kreese contacts his Vietnam war vet friend, Terry Silver, to help him get revenge. The character of Terry Silver is incredibly rich, dresses extremely well, happens to also be a black belt karate sensei, and he makes his living by illegally dumping toxic waste...
Thomas Ian Griffith plays the smarmy asshole of a character perfectly (He might have the best evil smirk in movie history through the early parts of the movie). I personally love that he schemes and negotiates both in a sauna and while taking a bubblebath. He sets up a bunch of run ins with Daniel to gain his trust, telling him Kreese has died, and training him in his own form of karate. Silver makes it a point to train Daniel the wrong way, telling him to use his anger and turning him against Mr. Miyagi. I definitely acknowledge that the idea that a billionaire would devote his personal time and resources to defeat and humiliate a local teenage karate champion is extremely ridiculous (Karate Kid 3 does not = realism). Griffith has so much fun with the part, not taking things too seriously, as his character in real life probably wouldn't. Overcoming such impossible odds is why Karate Kid 3 works as a movie at all, as by the end you really want Daniel-san to take this maniac down once and for all.
3. Elijah Wood as Kevin, Sin City
Now we get to the serious evil... This is probably the second best example of "casting against type" on this list. Kevin in the comics is more of a middle aged typical 'molester' and seemed menacing, but not quite as interesting at first. Then, you learn that Kevin is a cannibal who feeds the leftovers to his mostly feral pet wolf and keeps the heads on his wall... over the top and ridiculous, yes, but so is the rest of the Sin City universe. I love the movie adaptation, and I think this performance tends to get lost in the mix (if I had written this right after Sin City came out, I don't Wood would be as underrated).
Robert Rodriguez's decision to cast the innocent hobbit (only Rings joke in this section, I promise!) as the vicious killer made things all the creepier. At first, I thought it was gross miscasting, but changing the character's age and tweaking the look was a huge improvement. In the role, Elijah Wood has no lines of dialogue, yet manages to convey emotion extremely well through body language and his expressive eyes.
Part of what made Kevin so menacing is how much trouble he gives Marv (Mickey Rourke). Marv's combination of size and strength coupled with his fighting abilities makes him seemingly superhuman, yet the much smaller Kevin gives him more physical trouble than anyone else in the movie. The reasons he shows up this low o my countdown are his lack of screen time and relative unimportance to the overall plot (I think of him like Boba Fett from the first Star Wars trilogy). Yet he more then earns his spot with his distinctive look (love the glasses and preppy sweater), his spectacular comeuppance, and that the character made Elijah Wood frightening.
2. Frank Langella as Skeletor, Masters of the Universe
Masters of the Universe is a fatally flawed movie, yet this performance gets lost in the general sillyness of seeing He-Man fight evil in the suburbs of New Jersey. Frank Langella is a criminally underused and underrated actor, often appearing as stock villains in awful movies such as Cutthroat Island, Junior, and the Whoopi Goldberg opus, Eddie. When given a script that has the chance to flex his sizable acting chops, he can put together a performance like his portrayal of Richard Nixon in Frost vs. Nixon or his take of Dracula in the late 70s.
Skeletor in the cartoon He-Man was a fairly goofy yet visually dynamic villain with typical plans for world conquest and incompetent henchmen. The movie Skeletor comes across as an intelligent, persuasive schemer who retains the craze for power his predecessor had. The makeup on Langella is pretty good for the time period and budget and the costume/ram's head staff look genuine.
For such a crummy movie, Langella puts forth a ton of effort to make Skeletor a somewhat layered, menacing, and all around bad guy. I really love the monologue he delivers at the end when Skeletor gets the power of the universe. It's an amazingly moving and intense and I actually am rooting for Skeletor a bit as he finally is able to match He-Man physically. So for taking a buffoonish villain out of a badly animated show and making him a believable foe, Skeletor takes his spot on the list.
1. Ted Levine as Jame Gumb/Buffalo Bill, Silence of the Lambs
This performance is why I came up with this list, because lost behind the iconic, Academy Award winning Anthony Hopkins was this amazing characterization of a serial killer. Ted Levine is a talented character actor who usually plays cops, military types, or similar authority figures (Heat, Hills Have Eyes remake, and the boss on Monk are the three other roles that popped to mind). It wasn't until well after I saw the movie that I connected Gumb with any other part that Levine has played (trying to illustrate how unrecognizable he is).
For starters, the character is written as a somewhat feminine transvestite. On paper, there's definitely potential for Gumb to be silly or funny and not as scary. Ted Levine reportedly spent some time with transvestites in bars in order to not make the character a complete caricature. He also purposefully avoided villain roles in the years after the Silence of the Lambs was released to avoid being typecast. His dedication and hard work pays off as Gumb comes across as psychotic and disturbing in a somewhat realistic sort of way. In my opinion, the entire "lotion-dog-pit" sequence would be one of the best 'serial killer' scenes in any movie.
Finally, a good chunk of why Silence of the Lambs works so well is that the character of Jame Gumb is so threatening and out there. The search to catch him becomes so intense that the advice of Hannibal Lector becomes crucial. Strangely, while reading about this character, I found out the author Thomas Harris based the main plot of Silence of the Lambs on a true story, but not the story of noted serial killer Ed Gein (who definitely influenced the character of Hannibal Lector). I found it personally incredible, but a Seattle detective actually sought out the advice of Ted Bundy to try and catch the Green River Killer.
So there's my list... Check the movies if you haven't seen any yet...
I've wanted to do a villains list from the minute I started this blog, but my main problem was "its been done before." Every Halloween, Spike or SciFi or Bravo have a top villains countdown and I always have seen the same usual suspects on top... Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, the Wicked Witch, Norman Bates, Hans Gruber, Freddy Kruger, the shark from Jaws, etc. I could write up that same list, because honestly, those are the iconic villains that a lot of people know and love. So I decided instead to come up with ten villains that have slipped through the cracks for whatever reason in the popular mind. It's a group of performances that are in fairly major movies, but whenever I see "best of" lists, they never show up. So without further ado...
Honorable Mention - Vincent Cassel in Brotherhood of the Wolf, The Nothing in Neverending Story, Stephen Dorff in Blade, Ben Stiller in Heavyweights, and the 2 main antagonists from Battle Royale
10. Ed Harris as General Francis Hummel, The Rock
Ed Harris' portrayal of Hummel shows what a talented actor can do with a stock villain role. I think he's underrated because a lot of people remember the Rock for the explosions, the Sean Connery one liners, and another mopey Nick Cage embarassment. Besides Harris, you also get Tony Todd (Candyman!), David Morse, and John C. McGinley (Dr. Cox!) as the members of his Marine squad.Hummel holds the city of San Francisco hostage with a stockpile of biological weapons, yet when push comes to shove, Hummel does not try to take lives. Almost any stock villain would fail because the heroes defuse the bomb or stop him, but Hummel fails because of his moral values and beliefs. His actions don't seem weak or pathetic, but more like what a realistic career military man would do.
As an audience, you run the full range of emotions with him... you sense he's just trying to do his job and I love his reaction when the mariners led my personal favorite Michael Biehn try to invade Alcatraz. During the fierce gunfight that ensues, there's a fairly quite shot of Harris' face. His facial expression relays so much emotino compared to the typically hammy acting military villains from action movies. For being so three dimensional and realistic, Harris as General Hummel takes the place to start the list.
9. Tim Roth as Archibald Cunningham, Rob Roy
I had a hard time putting this performance on the list, as Roth did receive an Academy Award Best Supporting Actor nomination (losing to Kevin Spacey in Usual Suspects who in my opinion should have been up for Best Actor...). However, in the years since 1996, it seems like Rob Roy has been somewhat forgotten. Also, Cunningham disappears for decent chunks of the movie and is the henchman to John Hurt's aristocratic character.If you haven't seen it, the skilled yet effeminate Cunningham has the job of tracking down the rebel highlander Rob Roy. Despite his 'fancy' and 'dandy' exterior, he proves himself to be a ruthless and formidable foe. By the time this raping, stealing, murdering, wig-wearing aristocratic psychopath finally crosses swords with Liam Neeson's Roy, you've never wanted to see a movie villain die more. Fortunately, the amazing ending doesn't disappoint. After simply annihilating Liam Neeson for what seems like ten minutes... well, check it out... (sorry about the Polish subtitles, but there isn't much dialogue and this is the tightest edit of the fight I could find) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27M5KWI_q50&feature=PlayList&p=8BD409B68B76405D&index=0&playnext=1. So for a cool, nasty, and girly display of evil, Roth makes it on the list.
8. Michael Wincott as Top Dollar, The Crow
Top Dollar is interesting because he's first and foremost a businessman and only hates the Crow because he's losing money. Dollar's fallen on hard times and is trying to get his organization back its former glory. He's smart, organized, and vile, sleeping with his sister and encouraging drug deals. For most of the movie, he uses his various henchmen (including Candyman himself, Tony Todd) yet fares quite well himself in the climatic battle against the superhuman vigilante (wounding the titular bird does tip the scales in his favor). For combining scuzz with smooth, Wincott makes the list as this nasty capitalist.
7. Colin Farrell as Bullseye, Daredevil
After a meteoric rise to stardom, Colin Farrell's career tumbled after a series of mediocre starring performances (Alexander anyone?). Bullseye is a completely psychopathic hitman with the mutant power of superhuman reflexes giving him perfect accuracy with handheld weaponry. Given that over a dozen Marvel movies have been released in the last 10 years or so, to me, Daredevil tends to get lost in the mix (the non-chemistry/acting of the Affleck-Garner love story helped that out, as well as a last second studio decision to change the rating from R to PG-13).Farrell as Bullseye just seems to have a lot of fun and genuinely enjoys what he does, while still being menacing and a threat. This balance of humor and intensity is what makes Bullseye memorable and elevates him over some of his more serious contemporaries (Yes, Ian McKellan's portrayal of Magento has more depth and substance, but that character isn't exactly underrated). Bonus points can be given to the producers/director for having Bullseye use Farrell's natural Irish accent.
6. John Hurt (voice) as the Horned King, The Black Cauldron
Somehow, someway he's a Disney villain... yikes! During my animated characters countdown, I revealed my love for the Black Cauldron, part of which stems from this amazingly evil villain, the Horned King. Many of the iconic Disney villains that tend to make these lists are at least a bit comedic (Captain Hook, Cruella DeVil, Ursula) in one way or another. The Horned King has no funny side... He's a red robed, red eyed, skeletal, antler wearing despot with plans of world conquest. That's right, his scheme involves taking over the world, which runs contrary to the normal Disney motivation of messing with a princess or cute animal, maybe even taking over the African savannah or a European castle.His method for doing so is even creepier... find a magical cauldron with arcane power, fill it with the bodies of warriors his armies have killed, and then ressurect them as an unstoppable army of the undead. The Horned King also commands a living army of thuggish warrior as well as vicious pteradactyl type creatures called Gwythaints, all of whom are dominated by fear and intimidation. The Horned King scores so low for two reasons, 1.) he doesn't really do a lot himself besides be a creepy menace and 2.) he makes the classic James Bond villain mistake of imprisoning instead of killing the heroes which makes him a not quite as effective in my opinion.
(I appreciate theatrically trained British character actor types quite a bit - this may be an ongoing theme for this list). The Horned King's voice is provided by the distinguished and distinctive Brit John Hurt. Hurt tends to play more emotionally anguished and complex protagonists or is often used as a narrator. However, he shows his range by playing an ugly, menacing villain (actually a more subtle performance than his villainous dictator in V for Vendetta). Horned King deserves his spot for being a big part of why the Black Cauldron was the first PG rated animated Disney movie.
5. Christopher Plummer as General Chang, Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country
.jpg)
My level of enjoyment of Star Trek is a fairly mixed bag. I have fond memories of the original series and the Next Generation as a kid, and I do enjoy several of the movies, but I did not follow any of the later series (so I think that makes me a casual Trekkie). Whenever I bring up Star Trek villains, three tend to come up... the most overused - the Klingons, the most visually striking/menacing - the Borg, and the hammiest - Ricardo Montalban as Khan. Since rarely are specific Klingons mentioned, Christopher Plummer's portrayal of Chang deserves recognition as not only the best Klingon villain, but a great villain in his own right (I just think personally a lot of people dismiss Star Trek VI as the one where the cast looks really, really old (the actors were in their late 50s to early 70s at the time of filming) or the one with the clumsy Cold War analogies (fairly true). I think the filmmakers realized this and had the story be sort of a Star Trek meets Tom Clancy/CSI which was more cereberal and less physical for the most part.).The Klingons on Star Trek are a brutish warrior race that live by honor, but unlike the stereotypical brash and stupid villains (Christopher Lloyd's Klingon character from Star Trek 3) Chang is a scheming, intelligent planner. Instead of trying to blow up the Earth with a superweapon, Chang uses political trickery to assassinate political leaders, mentally toying around with the primary cast leading to the imprisonment of Kirk and McCoy. This realistic motivation combined with the class and elegance the classically trained Plummer (Unfortunate that despite Plummer's acting skills, he's never been even nominated for an Oscar, he has won 2 Emmy and 2 Tony awards) brings to the part makes him a great villain. I also like the visual look of the character, at Plummer's request, they didn't coat him with prosthetics, letting the character have more complex emotions (props go to the intimidating eyepath held on by three screws... now that's tough). I think the Shakespeare quoting, cool, yet devious Chang deserves his spot on the list.
4. Thomas Ian Griffith as Terry Silver, Karate Kid part III
The first Karate Kid movie has two memorable villains in the evil Cobra Kai disciple Billy Zabka as Johnny Lawrence and his mentor, John Kreese, played by Martin Kove, but to me, they don't hold up after watching the master of evil, Terry Silver, in part 3.After the original villains are humiliated by Danielsan and Mr. Miyagi (and after a sequel that doesn't expand on this particular story much at all), Kreese contacts his Vietnam war vet friend, Terry Silver, to help him get revenge. The character of Terry Silver is incredibly rich, dresses extremely well, happens to also be a black belt karate sensei, and he makes his living by illegally dumping toxic waste...
Thomas Ian Griffith plays the smarmy asshole of a character perfectly (He might have the best evil smirk in movie history through the early parts of the movie). I personally love that he schemes and negotiates both in a sauna and while taking a bubblebath. He sets up a bunch of run ins with Daniel to gain his trust, telling him Kreese has died, and training him in his own form of karate. Silver makes it a point to train Daniel the wrong way, telling him to use his anger and turning him against Mr. Miyagi. I definitely acknowledge that the idea that a billionaire would devote his personal time and resources to defeat and humiliate a local teenage karate champion is extremely ridiculous (Karate Kid 3 does not = realism). Griffith has so much fun with the part, not taking things too seriously, as his character in real life probably wouldn't. Overcoming such impossible odds is why Karate Kid 3 works as a movie at all, as by the end you really want Daniel-san to take this maniac down once and for all.
3. Elijah Wood as Kevin, Sin City
Now we get to the serious evil... This is probably the second best example of "casting against type" on this list. Kevin in the comics is more of a middle aged typical 'molester' and seemed menacing, but not quite as interesting at first. Then, you learn that Kevin is a cannibal who feeds the leftovers to his mostly feral pet wolf and keeps the heads on his wall... over the top and ridiculous, yes, but so is the rest of the Sin City universe. I love the movie adaptation, and I think this performance tends to get lost in the mix (if I had written this right after Sin City came out, I don't Wood would be as underrated).Robert Rodriguez's decision to cast the innocent hobbit (only Rings joke in this section, I promise!) as the vicious killer made things all the creepier. At first, I thought it was gross miscasting, but changing the character's age and tweaking the look was a huge improvement. In the role, Elijah Wood has no lines of dialogue, yet manages to convey emotion extremely well through body language and his expressive eyes.
Part of what made Kevin so menacing is how much trouble he gives Marv (Mickey Rourke). Marv's combination of size and strength coupled with his fighting abilities makes him seemingly superhuman, yet the much smaller Kevin gives him more physical trouble than anyone else in the movie. The reasons he shows up this low o my countdown are his lack of screen time and relative unimportance to the overall plot (I think of him like Boba Fett from the first Star Wars trilogy). Yet he more then earns his spot with his distinctive look (love the glasses and preppy sweater), his spectacular comeuppance, and that the character made Elijah Wood frightening.
2. Frank Langella as Skeletor, Masters of the Universe
Masters of the Universe is a fatally flawed movie, yet this performance gets lost in the general sillyness of seeing He-Man fight evil in the suburbs of New Jersey. Frank Langella is a criminally underused and underrated actor, often appearing as stock villains in awful movies such as Cutthroat Island, Junior, and the Whoopi Goldberg opus, Eddie. When given a script that has the chance to flex his sizable acting chops, he can put together a performance like his portrayal of Richard Nixon in Frost vs. Nixon or his take of Dracula in the late 70s.Skeletor in the cartoon He-Man was a fairly goofy yet visually dynamic villain with typical plans for world conquest and incompetent henchmen. The movie Skeletor comes across as an intelligent, persuasive schemer who retains the craze for power his predecessor had. The makeup on Langella is pretty good for the time period and budget and the costume/ram's head staff look genuine.
For such a crummy movie, Langella puts forth a ton of effort to make Skeletor a somewhat layered, menacing, and all around bad guy. I really love the monologue he delivers at the end when Skeletor gets the power of the universe. It's an amazingly moving and intense and I actually am rooting for Skeletor a bit as he finally is able to match He-Man physically. So for taking a buffoonish villain out of a badly animated show and making him a believable foe, Skeletor takes his spot on the list.
1. Ted Levine as Jame Gumb/Buffalo Bill, Silence of the Lambs
This performance is why I came up with this list, because lost behind the iconic, Academy Award winning Anthony Hopkins was this amazing characterization of a serial killer. Ted Levine is a talented character actor who usually plays cops, military types, or similar authority figures (Heat, Hills Have Eyes remake, and the boss on Monk are the three other roles that popped to mind). It wasn't until well after I saw the movie that I connected Gumb with any other part that Levine has played (trying to illustrate how unrecognizable he is).For starters, the character is written as a somewhat feminine transvestite. On paper, there's definitely potential for Gumb to be silly or funny and not as scary. Ted Levine reportedly spent some time with transvestites in bars in order to not make the character a complete caricature. He also purposefully avoided villain roles in the years after the Silence of the Lambs was released to avoid being typecast. His dedication and hard work pays off as Gumb comes across as psychotic and disturbing in a somewhat realistic sort of way. In my opinion, the entire "lotion-dog-pit" sequence would be one of the best 'serial killer' scenes in any movie.
Finally, a good chunk of why Silence of the Lambs works so well is that the character of Jame Gumb is so threatening and out there. The search to catch him becomes so intense that the advice of Hannibal Lector becomes crucial. Strangely, while reading about this character, I found out the author Thomas Harris based the main plot of Silence of the Lambs on a true story, but not the story of noted serial killer Ed Gein (who definitely influenced the character of Hannibal Lector). I found it personally incredible, but a Seattle detective actually sought out the advice of Ted Bundy to try and catch the Green River Killer.
So there's my list... Check the movies if you haven't seen any yet...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)