Everything Must Go
From Netflix: Director-writer Dan Rush makes his film debut with this dramedy based on a Raymond Carver short story about Nick (Will Ferrell), a good-hearted but relapsed alcoholic who decides to live on his front lawn after losing his job and being thrown out by his wife.
My Take: There were two things that surprised me about this movie. One, it was shot right here in the Phoenix area, and two, it was way more depressing than I thought it was going to be. I was expecting something along the lines of "Stranger Than Fiction..." heartfelt, sort of sad at times, but overall something that made you feel like a better person. I didn't get that vibe from this movie.
Instead we see a guy who is, I guess as Netflix put it, a good-hearted alcoholic trying to figure out what the hell he's doing with his life. Now I've never had to deal with a true alcoholic (though I know some people who like to pretend they are), so I can't say for sure how I would act, but don't you think there's a moment where you tell the guy "hey you know what? I'm gonna lock you in this room without booze until you're over it." And to top it off, this guy drinks PBR. That shit isn't even good, I don't care what the hipsters say.
Still, it's nice to see that Will Ferrell is capable of holding his own in a serious role. I'm holding on to faith that this means he won't suffer the same fate as Adam Sandler, destined to make shitty half-comedies for the rest of his career. He was believable, and he also was able to keep some semblance of his sense of humor throughout, so props to him on that.
Ultimately, I look at movies like this as similar to the one-off action movies that come out every other week. There's always some little story that I figure some director or producer was like "we're going to make a difference!" and then the movie comes out and barely makes a ripple. I don't even think this one made it into theaters. And I certainly wouldn't stack it up against movies like "Henry Poole Is Here." But it wasn't bad, either.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if you like Will Ferrell, or if you want to see what Will Ferrell can do when he's not an idiotic anchor man or a stupid race car driver, then check this movie out. It's not his best (I still prefer "Stranger Than Fiction"), but it's not bad.
Looper
From Netflix: In the year 2042, Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper, a hired assassin for the mob who kills people sent from the future. But what will he do when the mob decides to "close the loop," sending back Joe's future self (Bruce Willis) for assassination?
My Take: Here's one I that I knew, the second I saw the trailer, I wanted to see it. The concept is brilliant. A murder-for-hire who kills people that are sent back in time by some futuristic mob, only to discover that he himself has made the hit list? Craziness.
Well, it's not quite what I expected, but it's close enough that I was still more than happy to sit through it. The idea of the movie, while not what the trailer promised, is still sound: in the movie this is commonplace, and running into your old self is nothing new. In fact it's a way for you to see that your contract is "up" and you have 30 years to live your life before you are the one getting shot in the face. Interesting.
What I loved about this movie was the way the story was told. So many flash-backs and flash-forwards, showing what the future would have been, or was for each of the people. I love how they had memories from the young guy carry over to the old guy, along with the injuries. I love how it all kept a sort of sordid sense of humor (the bit where Bruce suggests that Levitt could have used a shorter name cutting into his arm, great stuff). The different perspectives were awesome, both visually and from a storytelling standpoint. I actually wasn't sure how to feel about Willis' mission -- I mean, killing kids, come on. But when you see what the future holds, that clouds things up a little bit.
And that ultimately leads me to what bothered me about this movie. I guess we got a taste of how the director/writer/producer/whoever saw time travel when the two main characters were sitting in the diner. Bruce Willis yells "IT DOESN'T MATTER." Well, except it does. The fact that you guys don't care about time travel doesn't give you the freedom to make a shitty ending. And that's kind of what we got. Oh sure it was a nice twist when he says he's going to change the loop. But if you think it through, that doesn't make sense. In the previous future, Bruce didn't exist and therefor would not have killed that kid OR his mom... and yet the kid still turns out to be the "rainmaker" or whatever his name was. So how does breaking the loop change anything? In reality, breaking the loop would have been killing the kid. Now my head hurts.
I'm also not seeing how this great makeup job on Levitt helps him look any more like Bruce Willis. Don't get me wrong, it was an awesome job of changing his facial features... if I didn't know what that guy actually looked like, I would have thought this was his real look. But I didn't see the resemblance with Brucey either. And speaking of Brucey, this was the most like homer simpson I think I've ever seen him look. Awesome.
Ultimately, "Looper" is a great flick that is definitely worth seeing. And no I didn't spoil anything for you here -- the movie still stands even knowing what I've revealed. Time travel movies are always a bitch, and considering how badly they could have screwed it up, I think this one actually does a pretty good job of keeping everything in order. Almost.
Oblivion
From Netflix: High above a war-torn future Earth, Cmdr. Jack Harper is maintaining the planet's defensive drones when a crippled starship enters his territory. Its sole occupant, a mysterious woman, leads Harper to shocking truths about humankind's legacy.
My Take: Because this movie just came out, I'm going to start off this review by letting you know if you should see it. You should. Don't fall for the "oh this is just another Tom Cruise Action Flick" thinking. Yes, it's Tom Cruise, and yes he's in typical form (and yes he even runs at one point). But this is a beautiful movie with an interesting story, and something you owe it to yourself to see.
Okay... ***SPOILERS*** beyond this point.
Easily my favorite part about this movie is how closely it mirrored the styling of "Mass Effect." That is such a sweet series of videogames, full of incredible artistic design, and while this is not a "Mass Effect" movie (please? Anyone?) it does capture a lot of the essence of the style that makes up those games. The visuals are gorgeous, and I love how the movie doesn't shy away from using iconic or shocking landmarks to show us what happened to the world. I don't know why that it is, but it just seems like post-apocalypse movies don't show enough of the planet for it to really sink in. Kudos for that.
The soundtrack is the same. So close to "Mass Effect" I was blown away. A great mix of the orchestral and the tech. Sound design overall is what really made this movie stand out to me. The sounds the drones made, the threatening tone they carried, even with Cruise's somewhat stilted acting, you got the uneasy feeling that at any moment those things could turn around and blow you the fuck away. I would say this movie did an even better job with sound design than "War Of The Worlds," which to this point was my favorite (and also, interestingly, starred Tom Cruise).
There were a couple of big holes in this movie, unfortunately... and even more unfortunately, those holes had to do with the story. First of all, I didn't like how they set the whole thing up with a long voice-over monologue from Tom Cruise. It was completely unneeded, since he essentially says the same exact thing to the survivor when she first regains consciousness. It was probably some idiot studio executive like "I don't think the audience is going to get it, hit them harder, in the face, with a hammer." Ahhhhh facepalm. The only benefit of the opening monologue was that you got to see some sweet visuals, so I guess it wasn't all bad.
My other big problem was the bad guy. If that thing was a machine, why in the world did it need to suck up all of earth's water? Why did it care about the earth in the first place? Having a non-organic enemy, I think it would have done them better to change the reason why it was there. Of course, that would also involve rewriting the bulk of the story. Better to have an organic enemy and leave it at that. Even though man, the visual effects in that Tet were so sweet. Also, why in the world would the thing use Tom Cruise against its own race? Infiltration would have made sense, but having "him, pile out of the ships, by the thousands," as Morgan Freeman says... that just doesn't make sense. Surely using robots or machines would have been more effective.
And finally, if you're going to have #52 come back at the end and be the same guy with the same mindset as #49, why would you also have him fight against #49 so hard when he's trying to stop the drone from coming back online? Wouldn't #52 be a little more likely to jump on board with #49's cause? I mean I know that's a fucked up thing to see, yourself, fighting against you, but I'm guessing neither of them had any affinity toward the drones, so why would #52 be so adamant about protecting one that wasn't even his?
Even with all of that, I thought this was a fantastic movie. Brilliantly told and portrayed, it takes its time yet has a great amount of action. Could it have been better? Yeah I suppose. But I'd see it again, and even if you are a moron and read my review, thus spoiling a lot of the movie, you should see it too.
Hey guess what? I'm cooking up another entry that doesn't have anything to do with movies -- but it's sort of sensitive, especially considering what we've gone through with Boston in the past week. I'll probably write it up for next weekend, so stay tuned...
No comments:
Post a Comment