This will be about my feelings about Inception and Predators. Its tough to avoid spoilers when talking about Inception, so if you haven't seen it yet, don't read this. For Predators, I'll only address things seen in the trailers, so it won't be as spoilery. Jadia, you get my first blog post based on a facebook comment...
So first, Inception. Everyone and I mean everyone who had seen it told me it was amazing, best movie ever, I'd love it, etc. So I had massive expectations going in... that were mostly met. I thought the last forty five minutes or so of Inception were absolutely flawless. Great acting, innovative action, clever writing... Visually, it was crisp, clean, and didn't have any glaring CGI goofyness (I want to know how they shot some of the "hotel scene"... had to be some crazy green screen sets). The cast was all around excellent, from the comic relief provided by Tom Hardy to the stoic Ken Watanabe to a surprisingly layered Cillian Murphy (his character's emotional payoff was surprisingly moving) and a welcome return to the big screen by Tom Berenger (his first movie in 9 years!).
So why wasn't it a 10 out of 10. For one thing, the inconsistent logic with the "dream worlds." There's a scene towards the beginning of the climax where Joe GL's character is shooting at some far away henchmen with an automatic rifle and then Tom Hardy's character says "dream a little bigger" and blows away the henchmen with a rocket launcher. Its a cute moment, but there are a lot of times throughout the climax when said rocket launcher would come in handy, but conveniently no one else "dreams of it." Also, its established that Ellen Page's character can create the dream levels, but it seems like the end "levels" are a lot tougher than they need to be (that snow fortress could have been a little easier to infiltrate). She also moves stuff around a ton early in the movie, but conveniently forgets to do that later on (I know they say that it would make it obvious to Fischer that they were dreaming and make his projections more aggressive, but literally wrapping the city on itself seems like a huge advantage).
More so than the above plot holes, how easily Ellen Page's character figures out DiCaprio's character's inner psyche and problems. It makes Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character seem really stupid and dense that he never figured it out in years of working with DiCaprio. Its also really dumb for DiCaprio to involve himself as much as he does (why not just have JGL, Yusef, Hardy, and Page's characters go deep into the dream and take Yusef's role in the first dream) considering how mentally damaged he is. A lot of the plot events seem to happen to create tension because the script says so and not for any real logical reason.
By comparison, Predators overachieved my expectations. The original Predator was one of my favorite movies and was followed by a goofy yet flawed sequel and then two terrible spinoffs. Even with Robert Rodriguez's involvement I was skeptical on the quality of another sequel, especially when the announced cast featured action luminaries Adrien Brody and Topher Grace.
Predators felt like the 80s sequel that the original deserved. Like the original, all of the characters are fairly simple, the plot is easy to understand, there are a lot of big guns, and a lot of stuff gets blown up real good. With the exception of the Predadogs sequence early on, there is no CGI... the Predators are once again dudes in suits and there's a lot of practical stuntwork.
The difference between Predator and s is that the original had a cohesive team of special ops badasses while the new one has a squabbling team of different types of killers. It's a little stereotypical as far as the characters go. We get the intense black guy (but not as intense as Bill Dukes/Mac from the first), the angry latino (an underused Danny Trejo), the stoic honorable asian, the hick (who I recognized as Billy "Downtown" Anderson from Major League 3), the Topher Grace (playing Topher Grace), and more. Brody pulls out a Christian Bale/Batman gravelly voice, I'm impressed how he got himself into amazing physical shape, and seems really believable as the extremely quick and cool under fire protagonist.
So why wasn't this a perfect 10? Lawrence Fishburne's character was really goofy and only there for exposition. A lot of the scenes straddled the line between homages (there's a moment similar to the full on badassery when the Indian dude takes off his shirt from the first) and ripping off the original (did we really need another impossibly far drop off a huge waterfall?). The scene from the previews where a ton of Predator laser sights zero in on Brody, well, that isn't even in the movie ( I hate when movies shoot scenes only for the trailer). For my liking, we see too much of the Predators. Part of what made the original so awesome was that we don't see the Predator full on until the end, and although the prosthestics/suits look amazing, its still a dude in a suit. Plus, the 'civil war' aspect is underdeveloped and fairly weak (if they wanted to go that route, I'd have liked the movie to focus more on that).
So both movies I liked, both have strength and weaknesses, I'd recommend both and I thought Inception was better overall... But only just a little.
That's all I have to say about that.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
top 7 movies of 2009
I know its well into 2010, but I just recently got done watching all the 2009 best picture Oscar nominees (well, except Precious, but I just couldn't do it). I felt like until I had seen more of the critically acclaimed movies, that this sort of column would be less valid. So without further ado, here's my top 7 movies from 2009. Why seven? because I'm lazy and there weren't that many great movies...
Honorable Mention from 2008 that didn't get a US release until 2009 so it's ineligible for the list but dang is it good movie -Let the Right One In
It's actually more of a dramatic character piece than a horror movie, the two lead child actors emote together for some of the best performances I've ever seen considering age, the script isn't super obvious but no stupid "twists" either, the camerawork pulls back to show the beautiful Swedish winter (I loved the many long shots, no goofy fast edited close up montages here). Finally, when the horror bits happened, they were intense and visceral especially when the rest of the movie was so somber. I have to say that I am less than excited about the US remake coming out this fall of 2010, I mean really, 2 years and we already get a remake?? (the trailer looks competent enough, but there's virtually no room to improve on the original thus making any remake unnecessary)
Last 3 movies out - The Road (really well made but amazingly depressing and hard to watch), Crazy Heart (very well acted but a little too familiar considering the high profile music biopics in recent years), and A Perfect Getaway (I'm still not sure if my love for this movie is that it blew away the low expectations I had or if its that good)
So without further ado...
7. Fanboys
In a year that saw such garbage as The Proposal and Paul Blart Mall Cop top 150 million domestic, this comedic gem was completely dumped by the Weinstein company. After being delayed for 2 years (it was originally set to be released in late summer of 2007), Fanboys had an extremely limited release (45 whole theaters) in early February.
So that's why you probably haven't heard of or seen this movie... but man is it funny. The best way to describe it is kids from Road Trip have a Star Wars themed Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back adventure. Or in easier to understand terms, in the year 1997, a group of friends drive cross country to Skywalker Ranch to steal a rough cut of Episode I. The main five characters have good camaraderie (especially Jay Baruchel and Dan Fogler) and there are a lot of great cameos (including Seth Rogen in three different parts). Its just a fun, silly comedy with clever references and a surprising amount of heart.
6. Zombieland
The previews didn't get me that excited (an American Shaun of the Dead knockoff) but the movie proved to be a fun, exciting ride with an appealing yet unlikely pair of the rough, vulgar Woody Harrelson and the Ceraish, germaphobic Jesse Eisenberg. Add in a long run of creatively gruesome zombie mayhem, witty dialogue, hilarious sight gags (featuring possibly the best celebrity cameo from... I can't spoil it), and Emma Stone's coming out as a hot babe with some acting chops, and you get a super enjoyable movie.
5. Inglorious Basterds
This movie wast the most frustrating on the list to evaluate for me. The good parts of this movie (the Basterds themselves, Christoph Waltz's fanatical officer, the final scene at the theater) outweigh the overly slow and unnecessary parts (the opening scene, Mike Myers' cameo, most of the bar sequence). To me, every QT movie is about ten minutes too long and has one long extraneous dialogue scene, and by my count, Basterds has at least four of these parts. On the good side, Tarantino always gets the most out of the cast at hand, which definitely holds true this time. BJ Novak, Eli Roth, and Brad Pitt stand out as the primary Basterds and their attempt to infiltrate the German ranks result in some of the funniest moments in any movie of 2009.
4. Up in the Air
I'm not generally a fan of one note snarky smooth George Clooney roles, but in the right movie (like in Out of Sight or Dusk Till Dawn) it can fit in really well. I also really enjoyed Jason Reitman's previous 2 movies (Juno and Thank you for Smoking) so I had high hopes going in. The basic premise of the movie (Clooney flies around the country helping companies to fire their employees) doesn't seem that interesting, but the amazingly clever dialogue and strong characters made this movie extremely memorable. Beyond Clooney, we also get gems in small roles from longtime favorite J.K. Simmons, Sam Elliott, Danny McBride, and Zack Galifinakis. However, for me, the movie was stolen by Anna Kendrick as Clooney's younger co worker who took a pretty stock idea (overachieving up and comer) and created a nuanced, realistic character. A lot of charm, but wasn't as exciting as the top three.
3. Taken
Liam Neeson beats up Europe, nuff said. This felt like the kid of the Bourne movies and Die Hard. Really simple plot, tight pacing, the action seemed realistic and didn't get too ridiculous. In my opinion, Liam Neeson might be the most underrated great modern actor. It seems like besides Schindler's List, most of his really good performances aren't remembered. I still really dig Rob Roy, Les Miserables, and even his part of Love, Actually wasn't that bad (the other part of that I can tolerate is the Alan Rickman store). Anyhow, back to Taken, amazing smart and gripping action movie, but wasn't super original, so it can't be #1.
2. District 9
Expectations greatly influence how much I enjoy or don't certain movies and going into District 9, I knew 2 things.
1. The movie involved aliens in South Africa
2. Every person who saw this movie thought it was at least pretty good.
Featuring the completely unknown Sharlto Copley, this movie had a combination of ridiculous action, political statements, and human pathos/drama. Early on, the quasi documentary style introduced the world and setup without a clumsy expositional scroll. After the first half hour or so, things pick up, and its pretty much an extended chase to the finish.
This movie also totally kept my attention and was amazingly suspenseful the whole way to the end. I don't want to give away too many details, but the showdown with the gangsters/army leading up to the "suit" part would probably place in my favorite action scenes ever. Plus, its the rare movie that doesn't tie everything up completely tidily and leaves room for future movies from director Neil Blomkamp (After seeing this, I'd have loved to have seen his proposed Halo movie).
1. Watchmen
Watchmen might be my favorite comic story that could possibly become a good movie. From the marketing campaign to the casting to the amazingly faithful direction, this is the best comic to movie adaptation to date. I could write for a while about everything I love but I'll focus on debunking the criticisms I've heard the most.
It's too long... Its a fricking epic, I love how much character development was kept in. If you want a short, to the point comic action movie, watch 300.
It's too gratuitous... This one is tougher, because the comic was written in the mid 80s, so Zack Snyder definitely intensified the violence (bones breaking, Manhattan making people explode) and sex aspects. Did this bother me? Nah, with the sheer volume of action/events, I think making some a little more memorable didn't hurt the movie that much.
But they changed (item X) from the comic... The density of the Watchmen universe made it amazingly hard to translate to a movie. Even with the 3 hour directors cut, there were cuts. To me, I can distill it down to focusing on the current team of Watchmen and really trimming a lot of the side characters. Its really funny to me that Ive heard complaints that it was too long yet things were left out. Its also funny how amazing V for Vendetta the movie was, yet Alan Moore and a lot of the hardcore fans really hated it.
Malin Ackerman/Matthew Goode can't act... Well, I kind of agree with the first and really would have liked a stronger actress there (Christina Hendricks from Mad Men would have been a cool choice). Goode as Ozymandias had a really tough part to play - the pacifist intellectual. It just is not as dynamic a character as Manhattan or Night Owl not to mention Rorschach. I think he did a really good, no great, no iconic job (and no best supporting actor nod, not even in Golden Globes).
On to what I liked specifically... SPOILERS!!!
A yellow screen with black company logos, a Pat Buchanan parody, MTV, door breaking, slow motion mug throwing, major league ass kicking, wall breaking, coffee table breaking, kitchen knife throwing, the shot of Jeffrey Dean Morgan thrown out a window, the freefalling yellow smiley face button,
pseudo slow motion opening montage with Bob Dylan song playing over the credits, a hot lesbian kiss, prostitutes, we find out who really shot JFK, the moon landing, gratuitous Richard Nixon winning another term as President, exploding store
awesome Jackie Earle Haley voice overs, a grappling hook gun, old superhero bullshit session, bean eating, World Trade Center in the background, cool teleportation effects, multiple flashbacks, superhero funeral set to the Simon and Garfunkel opus "The Sound of Silence," barfing, gratuitous Carla Guigno attempted flashback rape
The Comedian kicking ass: setting a guy on fire in the Nam and killing a pregnant woman, map burning, Matt Frewer!, the super cool old Night Owl, conscience growing, a blue skinned guy on Mars, gratuitous extended flashback concerning Dr. Manhattan's origin, tank destruction, exploding bad guys
Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon ecstatic about nuclear war killing people on the U.S. eastern seaboard, a deliveryman hitman, cool slow mo bullet to the head, metal thing to the body, a foamy cyanide death
The police fight with the bug spray flame thrower, Jackie Earle Haley without a mask!, ball punching, cheek tearing, gratuitous dogs fighting over a human leg bone followed by dead dogs, meat cleaver to the top of the head (ouch), attempted prison beating, hot grease to the face followed by amazingly badass line, gratuitous night vision goggles, impotence fighting, a midget prison gang boss, superhero sex, kid rescuing, outrunning an explosion, a prison riot, arm slicing, toilet breaking, electrocution, funny midget killing
Antarctica?, a big character revelation, funky tiger critter, a floating glass machine, Jimi Hendrix!, pacifist ass kicking killing millions to save billions, bullet catching, dead tiger critter, touching final moments, gratuitous ink blot, world peace, gratuitous "The Outer Limits," and an attack on Ronald Reagan, crappy My Chemical Romance cover of a Dylan song
Whew...
Who's gonna make the 2010 list? Who knows?
That's all I gotta say about that
Patrick
Honorable Mention from 2008 that didn't get a US release until 2009 so it's ineligible for the list but dang is it good movie -Let the Right One In
It's actually more of a dramatic character piece than a horror movie, the two lead child actors emote together for some of the best performances I've ever seen considering age, the script isn't super obvious but no stupid "twists" either, the camerawork pulls back to show the beautiful Swedish winter (I loved the many long shots, no goofy fast edited close up montages here). Finally, when the horror bits happened, they were intense and visceral especially when the rest of the movie was so somber. I have to say that I am less than excited about the US remake coming out this fall of 2010, I mean really, 2 years and we already get a remake?? (the trailer looks competent enough, but there's virtually no room to improve on the original thus making any remake unnecessary)
Last 3 movies out - The Road (really well made but amazingly depressing and hard to watch), Crazy Heart (very well acted but a little too familiar considering the high profile music biopics in recent years), and A Perfect Getaway (I'm still not sure if my love for this movie is that it blew away the low expectations I had or if its that good)
So without further ado...
7. Fanboys
In a year that saw such garbage as The Proposal and Paul Blart Mall Cop top 150 million domestic, this comedic gem was completely dumped by the Weinstein company. After being delayed for 2 years (it was originally set to be released in late summer of 2007), Fanboys had an extremely limited release (45 whole theaters) in early February.So that's why you probably haven't heard of or seen this movie... but man is it funny. The best way to describe it is kids from Road Trip have a Star Wars themed Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back adventure. Or in easier to understand terms, in the year 1997, a group of friends drive cross country to Skywalker Ranch to steal a rough cut of Episode I. The main five characters have good camaraderie (especially Jay Baruchel and Dan Fogler) and there are a lot of great cameos (including Seth Rogen in three different parts). Its just a fun, silly comedy with clever references and a surprising amount of heart.
6. Zombieland
The previews didn't get me that excited (an American Shaun of the Dead knockoff) but the movie proved to be a fun, exciting ride with an appealing yet unlikely pair of the rough, vulgar Woody Harrelson and the Ceraish, germaphobic Jesse Eisenberg. Add in a long run of creatively gruesome zombie mayhem, witty dialogue, hilarious sight gags (featuring possibly the best celebrity cameo from... I can't spoil it), and Emma Stone's coming out as a hot babe with some acting chops, and you get a super enjoyable movie.5. Inglorious Basterds
This movie wast the most frustrating on the list to evaluate for me. The good parts of this movie (the Basterds themselves, Christoph Waltz's fanatical officer, the final scene at the theater) outweigh the overly slow and unnecessary parts (the opening scene, Mike Myers' cameo, most of the bar sequence). To me, every QT movie is about ten minutes too long and has one long extraneous dialogue scene, and by my count, Basterds has at least four of these parts. On the good side, Tarantino always gets the most out of the cast at hand, which definitely holds true this time. BJ Novak, Eli Roth, and Brad Pitt stand out as the primary Basterds and their attempt to infiltrate the German ranks result in some of the funniest moments in any movie of 2009.4. Up in the Air
I'm not generally a fan of one note snarky smooth George Clooney roles, but in the right movie (like in Out of Sight or Dusk Till Dawn) it can fit in really well. I also really enjoyed Jason Reitman's previous 2 movies (Juno and Thank you for Smoking) so I had high hopes going in. The basic premise of the movie (Clooney flies around the country helping companies to fire their employees) doesn't seem that interesting, but the amazingly clever dialogue and strong characters made this movie extremely memorable. Beyond Clooney, we also get gems in small roles from longtime favorite J.K. Simmons, Sam Elliott, Danny McBride, and Zack Galifinakis. However, for me, the movie was stolen by Anna Kendrick as Clooney's younger co worker who took a pretty stock idea (overachieving up and comer) and created a nuanced, realistic character. A lot of charm, but wasn't as exciting as the top three.3. Taken
Liam Neeson beats up Europe, nuff said. This felt like the kid of the Bourne movies and Die Hard. Really simple plot, tight pacing, the action seemed realistic and didn't get too ridiculous. In my opinion, Liam Neeson might be the most underrated great modern actor. It seems like besides Schindler's List, most of his really good performances aren't remembered. I still really dig Rob Roy, Les Miserables, and even his part of Love, Actually wasn't that bad (the other part of that I can tolerate is the Alan Rickman store). Anyhow, back to Taken, amazing smart and gripping action movie, but wasn't super original, so it can't be #1.2. District 9
Expectations greatly influence how much I enjoy or don't certain movies and going into District 9, I knew 2 things.1. The movie involved aliens in South Africa
2. Every person who saw this movie thought it was at least pretty good.
Featuring the completely unknown Sharlto Copley, this movie had a combination of ridiculous action, political statements, and human pathos/drama. Early on, the quasi documentary style introduced the world and setup without a clumsy expositional scroll. After the first half hour or so, things pick up, and its pretty much an extended chase to the finish.
This movie also totally kept my attention and was amazingly suspenseful the whole way to the end. I don't want to give away too many details, but the showdown with the gangsters/army leading up to the "suit" part would probably place in my favorite action scenes ever. Plus, its the rare movie that doesn't tie everything up completely tidily and leaves room for future movies from director Neil Blomkamp (After seeing this, I'd have loved to have seen his proposed Halo movie).
1. Watchmen
Watchmen might be my favorite comic story that could possibly become a good movie. From the marketing campaign to the casting to the amazingly faithful direction, this is the best comic to movie adaptation to date. I could write for a while about everything I love but I'll focus on debunking the criticisms I've heard the most.It's too long... Its a fricking epic, I love how much character development was kept in. If you want a short, to the point comic action movie, watch 300.
It's too gratuitous... This one is tougher, because the comic was written in the mid 80s, so Zack Snyder definitely intensified the violence (bones breaking, Manhattan making people explode) and sex aspects. Did this bother me? Nah, with the sheer volume of action/events, I think making some a little more memorable didn't hurt the movie that much.
But they changed (item X) from the comic... The density of the Watchmen universe made it amazingly hard to translate to a movie. Even with the 3 hour directors cut, there were cuts. To me, I can distill it down to focusing on the current team of Watchmen and really trimming a lot of the side characters. Its really funny to me that Ive heard complaints that it was too long yet things were left out. Its also funny how amazing V for Vendetta the movie was, yet Alan Moore and a lot of the hardcore fans really hated it.
Malin Ackerman/Matthew Goode can't act... Well, I kind of agree with the first and really would have liked a stronger actress there (Christina Hendricks from Mad Men would have been a cool choice). Goode as Ozymandias had a really tough part to play - the pacifist intellectual. It just is not as dynamic a character as Manhattan or Night Owl not to mention Rorschach. I think he did a really good, no great, no iconic job (and no best supporting actor nod, not even in Golden Globes).
On to what I liked specifically... SPOILERS!!!
A yellow screen with black company logos, a Pat Buchanan parody, MTV, door breaking, slow motion mug throwing, major league ass kicking, wall breaking, coffee table breaking, kitchen knife throwing, the shot of Jeffrey Dean Morgan thrown out a window, the freefalling yellow smiley face button,
pseudo slow motion opening montage with Bob Dylan song playing over the credits, a hot lesbian kiss, prostitutes, we find out who really shot JFK, the moon landing, gratuitous Richard Nixon winning another term as President, exploding store
awesome Jackie Earle Haley voice overs, a grappling hook gun, old superhero bullshit session, bean eating, World Trade Center in the background, cool teleportation effects, multiple flashbacks, superhero funeral set to the Simon and Garfunkel opus "The Sound of Silence," barfing, gratuitous Carla Guigno attempted flashback rape
The Comedian kicking ass: setting a guy on fire in the Nam and killing a pregnant woman, map burning, Matt Frewer!, the super cool old Night Owl, conscience growing, a blue skinned guy on Mars, gratuitous extended flashback concerning Dr. Manhattan's origin, tank destruction, exploding bad guys
Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon ecstatic about nuclear war killing people on the U.S. eastern seaboard, a deliveryman hitman, cool slow mo bullet to the head, metal thing to the body, a foamy cyanide death
The police fight with the bug spray flame thrower, Jackie Earle Haley without a mask!, ball punching, cheek tearing, gratuitous dogs fighting over a human leg bone followed by dead dogs, meat cleaver to the top of the head (ouch), attempted prison beating, hot grease to the face followed by amazingly badass line, gratuitous night vision goggles, impotence fighting, a midget prison gang boss, superhero sex, kid rescuing, outrunning an explosion, a prison riot, arm slicing, toilet breaking, electrocution, funny midget killing
Antarctica?, a big character revelation, funky tiger critter, a floating glass machine, Jimi Hendrix!, pacifist ass kicking killing millions to save billions, bullet catching, dead tiger critter, touching final moments, gratuitous ink blot, world peace, gratuitous "The Outer Limits," and an attack on Ronald Reagan, crappy My Chemical Romance cover of a Dylan song
Whew...
Who's gonna make the 2010 list? Who knows?
That's all I gotta say about that
Patrick
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Survival PTrick Style
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...
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...
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)