“Yo, man, Spidey is a byotch! Batman wouldn’t’ve cried!”

broderic on May 6, 2007

Spiderman 3 is no Spiderman 2. It took the momentum built from the last movie, “Go get ’em tiger,” and threw some grit and Sandman into the gears grinding the franchise to a halt.

The biggest problem was Sandman. I was at the comic shop this weekend where they had lots of old time Spidey comics on the wall. Issue 2 was Doc Ock. Issue 1 must’ve been the Green Goblin. Issue 3 was, guess who? The Vulture, but issue 4 was Sandman. So they producers felt they had to stick with the schedule of villains established by the comic book. But Venom is a fanboy favorite, and was added to the trilogy to appease them. So it feels like they started with the Sandman as the prime villain, found out his story was weak, and added Venom. It results in an uneven story.

We first get Sandman. But did I mention Green Goblin Jr? He’s in it and his story line takes the most unconvincing turn of all. Back to Sandman, he’s a two-bit crook on the lam to see his daughter. That’s it, and by the way, he also killed your Uncle Ben. Hunh? Did he really kill him or did they make that up for the movie? Fanboys, help. They needed that in order for Spidey to work himself up for a showdown. Sandman then gets defeated at the two hour mark about which I wanted thought the ending should’ve occurred. He shows up in the last reel though to team up with Venom and kick some Spidey ass. Lame.

Venom was also problematic. They had to explain the entire emotional change in Peter Parker without losing time for Sandman bits. Peter becomes emo boy without the eyeliner. So after Sandman disappears, Venom takes over, but it was plainly a compression of a longer story arc from the comic book and the measly half hour it got didn’t do it justice.

Raimi I respect for making the first two very fine comicbook movies. He had a lot here to handle. Bottom line they should’ve had one villain. I think with the third installment they should’ve gone for the tried and true final act by redoing the first movie (see Indy and Star Wars for hints).

Caught this in the last showing on opening Friday. The audience was looking for a better time. I think plenty of people were disappointed judging from the number of people leaving before the first fake out ending occurred. It didn’t stop them from running to the doors after the second fake out ending, also.

3 of 5 stars

Adventures From My Netflix Queue:Lady of Burlesque

broderic on May 3, 2007

The movies that I really wanted to see over Memories of Murder starred Barbara Stanwyck. The latest one is Lady of Burlesque.

From the sound of the title it would’ve had to take place when burlesque was big. Early on in the thirties. Yet, as Miss Stanwyck makes her appearance, I expected the pretty, young thing, but it was the mature Miss Stanwyck. I found out that this movie was made in 1943! A few years from Lady Eve and just before Double Indemnity. So this is how some of her non-classic films were like. It’s a B movie! Yet, guess again. It was nominated for an Oscar in the song category “Take it off the E String. Play it on the G-string” which Miss Stanwyck sang. WooHoo!

The plot centers around the backstage shennanigans of a burlesque grind house, and then the ladies get involved in a murder straight out of a Scooby Doo mystery. “I would’ve gotten away with it, except for these meddling ladies of burlesque.” The murder mystery was pretty thin. As was the plot.

The funniest part of watching it was that I was expecting a pre-code movie. Of course, being made in 1943, it adhered to the code of ethics of the day. Just imagine how much “burlesque” they could show. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. For Miss Stanwyck’s song and dance, she did some bumping and grinding. Or at least that was what was hinted at. Cut to the audience. She shakes it, but only in your imagination.

Lady of Burleque isn’t bad, but it’s only for those hardcore Stanwyck fans.

3 of 5 stars.

Picture homages

broderic on May 2, 2007

What with Grindhouse, it seems like all the movies nowadays are trying to recapture something of the stories of the yesteryear. Here’s two that tried. Which of them succeeded?

Disturbia is to Rear Window as Sweet&Low is to sugar. It’s nowhere as good as the original. And yet, it seems that people have been flocking to it making it three weeks at the top of the box office. Why? Because they are wankers, but hey, I saw it in the theatres. I don’t think I am a wanker, but I wanted to see it because of its shameless rip of one of my favorite movies.

There are few direct riffs on the original. They’ve escaped me right now, a week since watching the movie. I remember one being the sound of a scream/killing waking Shia up. The leaving from the scene of the “crime” a lady. These were the only vestiges of Hitchcock’s film that stand out. The others were subtle. Is the killer coming over with a bat similar to Raymond Burr showing up at the door? Maybe. Is the scene with the depiction of the neighborhood the same? No Ms. Lonely Hearts though. Can’t compete.

The one thing they updated was the score. Or at least the musical soundtrack with what passes for music nowadays. Why? It was an episode of the OC with that dude stuck in doors. Or that other dude on a killing spree. Sorry, about the names, but at least that is what I think it would be like.

It’s a palid version of one of the greatest movies in Hitchcock’s ouevre.

2 of 5 stars.

Hot Fuzz brought to us by the madmen who did Shaun of the Dead (which I thought was alright), and the director of the funniest fake trailer in Grindhouse, “Don’t.” Yet, this film appealed to me more. Shaun of the Dead was a mediocre attempt at a zombie movie. Zombies are tired. They should’ve been ninjas, or at least pirates.

But Hot Fuzz travels in the tried and true action genre.

Whether they are spoofing it or paying a cheeky homage is hard to tell. If they refer to Bad Boyz II as the ultimate flick, it’s got to be a spoof. Yet, they reference Michael Bay-isms throughout. HOMAGE!

Best line riffed on Jake Gittes, but not: “Forget it, Nick, it’s Sandford.” That’s won me some points those cheeky brits.

4 of 5 stars.

The Children of Hurin

broderic on May 1, 2007

I had finished this book sometime last week. Loved it, but I had read it already in its various forms. It made me tear up at the Finduilas part. Damn, Morgoth Bauglir! I curse thee! May you stay locked up in The Void for all eternity.

I wonder how those who haven’t read The Silmarillion are going to react to this book. Dark and forboding it is, and nothing like The Lord of the Rings. Those elves and men are not as nice. Everyone is more like Boromir. Turin mainly.

B+

Playing Catch Up

broderic on April 20, 2007

I haven’t been posting regularly. As if you didn’t know. I’ve been too busy. Some of the things I had due are almost done and now I have found some time to breathe. Let me post something to know that BrowserMetrics the blog still has a pulse.

First off most of my friends in the side bar are also silent except for Margeaux. She’s been blogging up a storm compared to me and the others. Of course she has spent most of this month doing nothing but writing. Yet, she has time to read The Children of Hurin? Hmm.

Second, I did catch Grindhouse opening weekend, and from the looks of things, its closing weekend as well. 3 of 5 stars is my rating. First, Rodriguez makes bad films. Including Sin City. So when he set out to make a bad movie, it’s doubly the worst of it all. The problem with his film was that it was too much like USA Up All Night from the eighties. No one told us that the shit playing at the grindhouse is really the shit you watched on cable drunk. I paid money for this? Tarantino’s half is more of a problem. It was too serious in tone and completely clashed with the previous Rodriguez part. “I went to the grindhouse and a Tarantino movie started!” Plus it was talky. I wonder if you went to a grindhouse to watch talking. Yes, it was dark and disturbing at times, but in the sense it was Tarantino. At least his bad acting was overshadowed by the badness of the films.

Third school. At least the class I am taking now. It sucks. I have a new WindBlows laptop though. And a dead Dell box. Linux is just as lame. Computers should help you be productive not throw obstacles in your way. They just need to work sometimes.

That’s it for now. I don’t like writing much. But there it is.

Heads Exploding

broderic on April 5, 2007

If you had asked me when the action flick, Shooter, first came out to watch it, I would’ve told you that 40 horses couldn’t drag me to see that film. I’m glad I changed my mind.

I caught it this evening, and enjoyed every minute of it. It’s got more heads exploding than Scanners. Every victim died from a bullet to the head shot from a mile to mere inches. You knew everytime someone would peak their head out that it was going to explode in a gush of blood.

Nothing but heads exploding!

And I laughed from the absurdity of it all.

Does that make me psychotic?

3 of 5 stars.

Movie Time

broderic on April 2, 2007

300. I saw this opening weekend with a big, black lady oohing and aahing at the abs of the spartans. She wanted to take one home. It’s very homoerotic. Too much like a video game.

3 of 5 stars.

The Lookout. For the life of me I don’t know why this was rated “R.” Blood and guts? Not so much. Robbery? Maybe. Sex? Trite but no skin.

3 of 5 stars.

Zodiac

broderic on March 8, 2007

Season 3 of The X-Files had one of the most memorable episodes of its run, Jose Chung’s “From Outer Space.” In it the titular author, Jose Chung is writing his non-fiction science fiction account of the abduction of two teenagers. He interviews Agent Scully (Wow!), but the whole abduction thing has a Rashomon effect and the truth is not so cut and dry. In fact no one knows exactly what happened. It is a mystery. As the interview with Agent Scully (Woot!) wraps up, she tells him that at least it has an ending, which is more than she can say for the rest of her cases.

That’s how Zodiac seems to have been. At least it has an ending. And at least we get some kind of closure. But (SPOILER ALERT) if Arthur Leigh Allen didn’t do it, there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence to have the fingers pointing at him.

What I found as I watched is that, in this very age, detective television shows such as the X-Files, CSI or Law and Order make it tough to watch police procedurals at the cinema. Each week Law and Order solves a crime and brings to justice the perpetrator. Zodiac neither solved the crime or brought to justice the perpetrator, but it had an ending whether satisfying or not Scully would’ve approved.

Zodiac still felt like an episode of Law and Order. It was divided into two parts. The “Order” part wherein Mark Ruffalo’s detective tries to piece together a case, and the “Law” part with Jake Gyllenhall picks up the case and identify the true killer and his motives so that he can be brought to justice. And that’s just the story’s structure.

Again like detective television shows, I expected the CSI to nail the villian. He couldn’t have been too smart to get away with it. There is always evidence that will incriminate. Yet, the detectives couldn’t find any. I was wondering if they didn’t have decent crime scene investigators in the 70s.

All in all, Zodiac felt more like television. It strikes out trying to be a film because it feels too much like crime shows on tv. If only they put the ominous chords associated with Law and Order, it may have been good.

3 of 5 stars.

UPDATE:
Matt Zoller Seitz really captures exactly what I wanted to say with his review.

Missing movies post

broderic on February 11, 2007

Movie watching continues apace. I really wanted to write some deep insightful reviews of these three, but can never get them started.

Catch and Release. It was a Jennifer Garner weekend that was. This movie is a supposed romantic drama-dy, and such it disappointed on both the romantic end, the dramatic end, and the comedic end. You saw all the funny parts in the trailer. The drama was used as an explanation to the marketers as to how the movie really didn’t have too much laughs. The romance! The romance? I just didn’t get. Your fiance dies and you want fall for the one person who’s a cad? Please. In a comment at Margeaux’s, I believe the film to be too sappy, because it embraces the love story in the end. If it ended with them not making up and her out on her own it would’ve felt real. As for that, it felt like another marketing decision and the director/writer should’ve know to stick to her convictions of the story and not have them hook up again. It would’ve been a smarter, mature movie that way.

2 of 5 stars.

Because I Said So. Someone should’ve asked her to keep her mouth shut. What is happening to Diane Keaton? And what is happening to Mandy Moore? Keaton is Annie Hall, but that character is feeling a bit sad in her old age. Moore is in another bad movie. Whatever? I should not have seen this one.Capitol Swell has a better review. Let’s just say Mandy Moore needs to read more better scripts.

2 of 5 stars.

The Messengers is a j-horror film in the middle of Nebraska. Yes. That sounds incongruous and the movie was. It was filled with worn out j-horror images. Things you’ve seen in other movies. J-horror is becoming extremely tired like the slasher horror genre before it. They need to make creepier films built to scare the bejeebus out of you when you get home. After watching this, I was scared but soon forgot why by the next morning.

2 of 5 stars.

Adventures From My Netflix Queue: Suspicion

broderic on February 11, 2007


Suspicion won Joan Fontaine an Academy Award for Best Actress. It is said that she received it because of missing out on it the year before for Rebecca. While I certainly liked the Rebecca, Suspicion was good. If flawed.

Flawed?

Yes. The ending didn’t particular suit the film. Everything leading up to it said, “Murder!” But we get some curt explanation, some hilarious mistaken motives, and a really fun, action at the end. All is wrapped us neat and tidy to fit in with the Hollywood production code. This was one movie where the original ending (see the extras) would have made this movie more satisfying.


This is also Cary Grant’s first movie with the master director. And he plays it like a cad with a dark and mysterious past. Yet, Grant seems to me too bright. For me, he doesn’t have the dark, rightening, murderous persona beneath his gentlemanly persona like I believe James Stewart to possess. Still he is one of Hitchcock’s iconic leading men. I still prefer Stewart, but Grant is good because he is playful and makes Hitchcock a more sly and sinister storyteller. Who believes these men to be all-star, all Americans knows not of the dark and ugly evil lurking in all men?

My Hitchcock obsession continues.

4 of 5 stars.