Archive for the Highly Stylized Films Category

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL (2013)

Posted in 2013, 3-D, Adult Fairy Tales, Based on Classic Films, CGI, Cinema Knife Fights, Exotic Locales, Fantasy Films, Highly Stylized Films, Prequels, Sam Raimi, Witchcraft, Witches with tags , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL (2013)
By Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

oz-1

(THE SCENE: A circus, filmed in black and white.  L.L. SOARES, dressed in a magician’s costume, stands on a stage in front of a sparse crowd.)

L.L. SOARES:  For my next astonishing trick, I’ll need a volunteer from the audience.  You, there!  The silly-looking gentleman standing in the back.

(Spotlight lands on MICHAEL ARRUDA, standing in back of audience.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Are you talking to me? (points to his chest.)

LS (under his breath):  Yeah, you, you Travis Bickle wannabe.  (louder to audience) Yes, young man. Come up here. Don’t be afraid.

(MA approaches stage to mild applause.)

LS: For this amazing feat of magic, I shall require the services of my magic wand.  (Lifts magic wand, dripping with blood.)

MA (now standing next to LS):  Are you sure that’s not your magic knife? You haven’t been drinking and mixed them up again, have you?

LS:  Silence!  For this trick, I shall make him disappear.  Hocus frigging Pocus!  (taps MA on the shoulder with bloody wand.  There is a great puff of white smoke, and when it clears, MA has disappeared.)

I like this gig!

(MA finds himself back in the audience)

MA:  Not so fast!  (Rushes back on stage).  We have a movie to review, and you’re not getting rid of me so easily!

(MA leaps at LS, the two wrestle, and fall out a back door onto an incredibly colorful path, as the scene is now in bright Technicolor.  They are on a hill, standing on a yellow brick road, looking down at the glittering Emerald City of Oz.)

MA:  We’re not in Kansas anymore.

LS:  When the hell were we ever in Kansas?

MA:  It’s a figure of speech.

Well, now that we’re here in Oz, let’s review today’s movie, OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL (2013) Disney’s prequel to the classic THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939).

The story opens in a scene similar to the one we just left.  Young magician and con-man Oscar Diggs (James Franco), who goes by “Oz” for short, is struggling to make ends meet with his sideshow magic act.

LS: I have no idea if the Wizard has a regular name in L. Frank Baum’s OZ books, but do you think the fact that Franco’s character’s name is Oscar is a joke because he hosted the Oscars one year with Anne Hathaway? I remember they were pretty much pilloried for that gig.

MA: Who cares?

He’s helped by his assistant Frank (Zach Braff) and by clueless women who he charms and lies his way into getting them to be part of the act on stage.  When one such woman, Annie (Michelle Williams), tells him that someone has asked her to marry him, she professes her love for Oscar, but he tells her to go ahead and get married because he’s not a good man.  Their conversation is interrupted by the circus strong man, who is angry at Oscar for giving a gift to his woman—a music box, to be precise, which we learn Oscar gives to every woman he is romantically interested in— and so Oscar leaps into a hot air balloon and flees his former life, only to be caught up in a massive tornado which propels him of course to the Land of Oz.

LS: That’s the same way Dorothy got to Oz in the original movie! Hey, it was funny how there’s a scene with Franco, Williams and Braff, and I realized, there’s a whole new generation of actors whose careers started in television. Franco was on the short-lived, but revered cult TV show FREAKS AND GEEKS (which only lasted one season, from 1999 to 2000, yet almost everyone from that show has gone on to a bigger career, including Seth Rogan and Jason Segel); Williams, of course, became famous on DAWSON’S CREEK (1998 – 2003); and Braff first became a familiar face on SCRUBS (2001 – 2010). It was like a TV reunion! And yet, all three are really good here in a theatrical movie!

MA: I agree.  And I remember liking Braff a lot on SCRUBS.

In Oz, Oscar meets Theodora the Good Witch (Mila Kunis), who tells him of the prophecy that a wizard named Oz would arrive from the sky to free their people from the wicked witch of the land.

LS: And Kunis’s big break was also on television, on THAT ‘70S SHOW (1998 – 2006). Hey, don’t forget the part of the prophecy that says the wizard will have the same name as the land of Oz. I thought that was kind of goofy, but funny, too.

MA: Not to mention unbelievable, but since this is a fantasy, I let it slide.

Theodora falls for Oscar immediately and is convinced that he is the wizard from the prophecy, and that he will become king and she’ll be his queen.  She brings him to the Emerald City where she introduces him to her sister, another witch, Evanora (Rachel Weisz).

LS: Finally, someone who didn’t start their career on television! Well, American television. Weisz began her career in television in England, but became familiar to American audiences in movies like THE MUMMY (1999). I also thought she was kind of amazing in Neil LeBute’s 2003 film, THE SHAPE OF THINGS.

MA: On their way to the city, they meet up with and befriend a talking flying monkey, Finley (voiced by Zach Braff).  Oscar saves Finley from the clutches of a lion, and as result, Finley promises to be his faithful servant for life.

LS: Was it just me, or was Finley one of the best-looking CGI creations we have seen in a long time? The level of detail, and his facial expressions, were just terrific.

MA: No, it’s not just you.  I thought the same the thing, and I also thought the little China Doll was just as good.  Excellent special effects here!

The witch sisters show Oscar an enormous “treasure room” full of gold which will all be his once he has defeated the wicked witch, and all he needs do to accomplish this task is to destroy her magic wand.  Unable to resist the temptation of all that wealth, Oscar agrees to the task and sets out along with Finley to destroy the wicked witch.  Along the way, they rescue and repair a broken talking China doll (voiced by Joey King) who cries her way into becoming part of their team.

LS: Yeah, China is another amazing CGI creation. At least the effects in this movie are incredibly well done.

MA: Once in the dark forest, they attempt to destroy the wicked witch, but it turns out that this witch, Glinda (Michelle Williams), isn’t wicked at all, but a good witch.  The true wicked witch, according to Glinda, is really Evanora.

LS: Hey, wait a minute. We’ve been walking along as we talked, and we’re in a dark forest now as well.

MA: Funny how that happened.

LS: Hmmm, we’re surrounded by apple trees. I could go for an apple right about now.

(LS picks an apple off a tree, and the tree turns around and slaps him with one of its branches)

TREE: Do I go around picking things off you?

LS: One of those cool talking trees from THE WIZARD OF OZ!

TREE: I asked you a question.

MA: Sorry.  We don’t usually talk to trees. And where we come from, apples are food.

TREE: Food! How barbaric! I oughta knock your block off.

LS: Hey, how come you trees weren’t in OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL. I missed you guys when Oscar goes into the dark forest this time.

MA:  I never liked those trees, and so I’m glad they weren’t in this movie.  (An apple plunks him on the head.)

TREE: Maybe we were saplings back then and weren’t big enough to talk. How the hell do I know? Now give that apple back.

(LS hands over the apple he picked, and the TREE takes it)

TREE: Now hurry on off if you know what’s good for you!

LS: Okay, okay.

(LS and MA continue walking along the road)

MA: Anyway, Glinda introduces Oscar to the oppressed people of Oz and tells him that it’s up to him to free her people from the clutches of Evanora, and her unsuspecting sister Theodora, who it turns out, is about to undergo a dramatic personality shift, to say the least.

LS: Yeah, I have to admit, I didn’t see that coming. So let’s not spoil it further.

MA: OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL gets off to a slow and rather clunky start but ultimately improves to the point where it becomes a movie that I —surprisingly—- really liked a lot.

LS: I didn’t think the beginning was clunky at all.

MA: Well, not the very beginning, the black and white sequence where we see Oscar working as a sideshow magician with his assistant Frank, which I liked.  These scenes were humorous and shot in the tradition of the original movie, THE WIZARD OF OZ.  They also set the stage for the transformation to the colorful 3D extravaganza known as Oz.

LS: I also noticed that, during the black and white scenes, the screen we see is smaller. But when gets to Oz, it is not only more colorful, but the screen expands to widescreen perspective. A clever trick!

MA: But it’s in the early moments in Oz that I thought the film faltered.  I did not enjoy the early scenes between Oscar and Theodora.  I found Theodora to be incredibly naïve and as a result not very believable.

LS: There aren’t naïve people in real life? And wouldn’t it make sense if she never before saw a man fall out of the sky? It’s not something we see every day. And there is the prophecy!

MA: She falls in love with him in less than a minute.  Naïve.

I also thought the dialogue here, especially Theodora’s, was particularly bad, and the scenes inside the castle where Oscar meets Theodora’s sister Evanora aren’t much better.

Things pick up once Oscar sets out to destroy the wicked witch, along with his faithful monkey Finley and the little China Girl, two CGI creations who not only look terrific, but who are also two of the better characters in the movie. They’re better than most of the “real” people here.

LS: I’ll agree with you on that point.

MA: And then things really get moving once they confront Glinda and we learn that she’s not really a wicked witch.  When she explains to Oscar what his true mission must be, and he accepts, the movie takes on an entirely different and more rewarding emotional feel.   The scenes where Oscar must lead the various groups of Oz inhabitants, farmers, tinkers, and of course Munchkins, are light, funny, and ultimately gratifying.

LS: I actually had a mixed reaction to the scene where we first meet the Munchkins. They begin to sing, and Oscar discourages them. In a way it’s funny, and I’m not normally a fan of musicals, but at the same time, the music was one of the indelible stamps that made THE WIZARD OF OZ so unique. How there was music and singing, but it wasn’t really a musical per se. I think this new OZ could have let its hair down a little more.

MA: I’m glad Oscar told them to shut up.

1352964587_oz_3

Of course, these scenes also coincide with Theodora’s transformation into the true threat of the movie, a transformation that I both bought and enjoyed.

LS: Enough of that!

(A MUNCHKIN suddenly walks by. He’s holding a stick over his shoulder with a knapsack on the end, like a hobo)

MA: Hey little guy, where are you headed?

MUNCHKIN: Far away from here. They won’t let us sing in this movie.

LS: Is that so bad?

MUNCHKIN: Don’t know a lot about Munchkins, do you? We were born to sing. It’s in our hearts, it’s in our souls. We live to sing! And this Oz character shows up and tells us to “Take 5.” The nerve of that guy!

MA: So where are you headed? Going to go to Middle Earth and hang out with the Hobbits?

MUNCHKIN:  Of course not, they don’t sing either!

LS: Going to go sit in a display case at Dunkin’ Donuts?

MUNCHKIN (sticks out his tongue): Very funny. That would be a big No.

MA: So where does a Munchkin go if he’s not allowed to sing?

MUNCHKIN: Why the show GLEE of course. I’m sure they’d invite me to join the cast.

LS: Good luck with that.

(MUNCHKIN walks away)

LS: Back to our regularly scheduled program.

MA: In spite of its slow start, I liked OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL a lot.  Sam Raimi has hit yet another home run with this colorful, agreeable, and highly entertaining fantasy tale that has a lot of things going for it.

LS: I agree with you. I liked it a lot, too. And I think a lot of the credit goes to director Raimi. This sure makes up for the awful SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)! Nice to see him back to full power again.

I went in wondering how it would compare to THE WIZARD OF OZ, because comparisons are inevitable. And it compares quiet well. The level of acting and the script are good, but do not seem to be as solid as the original film. And strangely, though technology is so advanced now, I think the original 1939 film still looks more amazing and the land of Oz looked more “real” back then.

MA:  James Franco is excellent as Oscar, “Oz,” and in a movie driven by special effects, he still manages to carry this movie and drive it along.  I bought into his character and accepted his flaws as genuine.  He basically plays Oscar as a guy who succeeds in spite of himself, and I liked this.

LS: Oscar isn’t the most likable character in the world, but that’s okay. He’s not supposed to be. He’s actually kind of a fool. But this is a tale of redemption, and Franco shines in the lead role here. I love that goofy grin of his. He’s making it up as he goes along, but he has no idea what the rules are in this new world, and so he’s going to get duped sometimes, as a lot of us would be.

MA: Michelle Williams makes a sincere and touching Glinda, and I’d have to say I thought she delivered the best performance in the movie, which is saying a lot because I didn’t expect much from this character, and yet she makes for such a strong and attractive presence, I found myself that much more interested in the story whenever she was on screen.

LS: You know, in our COMING ATTRACTIONS column earlier this month, we made a big deal of Mila Kunis being so beautiful in the trailer for this movie. But the truth is, Williams is just as beautiful (and Weisz is certainly no slouch, either) here. The thing is, you’re right—she does deliver the best performance in the movie. I thought she was perfectly cast here. It’s so easy for such a completely “good” character to be just plain boring. Usually the bad guys are the most exciting ones. But Williams makes Glinda believable. And I liked her character a lot—which amazed me, because I always root for the bad guys! She really has become an amazing actress over the years. I thought she was great as Lily in BLACK SWAN (2010).

MA:  I have to agree with everything you just said, and I think that’s why I liked her so much.  For once, the “good” character was just as interesting as the bad!

I did not enjoy Mila Kunis early on as Theodora, to the point where I was hoping she wasn’t going to be in the movie much.  But I really liked her dark side, so much so that it made me forget completely her lame interpretation of Theodora at the beginning of the movie.

LS: Oh give Mila a break! The way she plays Theodora early on is crucial to what happens later, and I think she does a good job.

MA:  Gag!

LS:  She is beautiful, and her character is supposed to be clueless and easily manipulated. That is vital to how she ultimately reacts to both her sister Evanor and Oscar. I will admit, there are some scenes where Kunis did seem a little stilted, and her performance isn’t the best one here, but she’s coming along nicely as an actress. Who knew, when she played a supporting character on THAT ‘70S SHOW, that her career would be so huge. I don’t think she’s an amazing actress, yet, but I think she’s getting better and better.

MA: Like we both said earlier, the two CGI creations, Finley the monkey and China Girl, voiced by Zach Braff and young Joey King, were two of the most captivating and enjoyable characters in the movie.  They’re on par with Yoda in the STAR WARS films and Gollum from the LORD OF THE RINGS movies.

And the 3D effects here are excellent, too. I’d have to say that this is the most visually satisfying movie I’ve seen since HUGO (2011).

LS: Yeah, I saw the 2D version. Maybe I should have seen it in 3D instead. But I will say that seeing the 2D version didn’t hurt my enjoyment of the film at all.

As for the special effects, everyone who worked on them for this movie deserves heaps of praise. OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is way above average, which made it stand up much better in comparison to the 1939 movie, which set a high bar.

(A FLYING MONKEY from the original WIZARD OF OZ walks by, carrying a knapsack over his shoulder)

MA: Hey little guy, where are you headed?

LS: Is there an echo in here?

FLYING MONKEY: I thought the wicked witch’s flying monkeys were one of the coolest things about THE WIZARD OF OZ, and now I find I’m out of a job.

MA: There are flying monkeys in OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL.

FLYING MONKEY: Let’s be specific here, shall we? The flying monkeys in this movie are flying BABOONS. There’s no sign of the monkeys from THE WIZARD OF OZ this time around. We’ve been replaced.

LS: You mean you don’t want to put on a little bellhop’s outfit and pretend to be Finley?

FLYING MONKEY: That wimp? No way! If the only choices I have are dressing like a bellboy and being all cute, or being out of a job, then I’ll be on my way.

LS: I do agree this was a little annoying. As a kid, I always thought the flying monkeys were the best part of THE WIZARD OF OZ. They didn’t need to be improved, and they didn’t need to be changed into baboons. Hell, if you want scarier monkeys, why not go all out and hire some mandrills?

MA: I didn’t mind the baboons here, although I’ve always liked the flying monkeys from the original, so admittedly I did miss them a little bit.

LS: The CGI flying baboons were okay, but they were one of the things I liked least about OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL.

FLYING MONKEY: Well, unless you can hire me on as an evil henchman, I’ll be going.

LS: I’m tempted. Honest I am.

MA: It’s not in the budget!

LS: I know. Farewell, scary monkey.

(FLYING MONKEY continues walking down the yellow brick road)

MA: The screenplay by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire manages to tell a compelling story with lots of references to the original movie, from a lion in the woods, to scarecrows, to the poppy fields.  There are many moments that will indeed bring back memories from the 1939 classic.

LS: A movie you admit you don’t like.

MA:  Guilty as charged.

oz-lg

LS:  As a fan of the 1939 film, I was surprised how good OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL was. I really thought it would look shallow in comparison, and it stands up quite nicely. The script is clever, and sticks to the story of THE WIZARD OF OZ pretty closely. It explains a lot of things in a smart way.

MA: One thing I didn’t like, or at least didn’t understand, was that in the 1939 film, the characters that Dorothy meets, the Scarecrow, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, Wicked Witch, and even the Wizard himself, all resemble people she knew in Kansas, which makes sense because at the end of the movie it’s revealed she was dreaming.  Here, characters Oscar meets also resemble people he knew back home, yet here it’s not inferred that he’s dreaming.

LS: Maybe he is. Then again, maybe he died in that tornado and Oz is the afterlife! The way I saw it, maybe it’s not inferred because maybe he wasn’t dreaming, and maybe Dorothy wasn’t either. Maybe she really visited this other dimension (or perhaps she had a near death experience and got a glimpse of the afterlife as well), too. You can debate it all you want, because it’s open to interpretation.

MA: But if we are to infer that it’s all a dream, then how does this tie in with Dorothy’s dream later?  Can they both have the same dream?  Or is Oz real?  No doubt, I’m overthinking this, but it was something that was definitely on my mind as I walked out of the theater.

LS: That’s a first. You can barely think and now you claim to be overthinking. I think poor Finley has more brains than you.

MA: Which goes to show just how clueless you can be sometimes!

LS: You know, one thing I was worried about was that Disney would make this story extra bland to appeal to the widest audience. They have a way of doing that sometimes, although I must admit, it wasn’t a problem with Andrew Stanton’s underrated JOHN CARTER (2012). Just last week you were complaining that JACK THE GIANT SLAYER was super homogenized and didn’t have any kind of edge to it. I was surprised that OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL has any kind of edge at all. But Franco’s Oscar is certainly a flawed character, the witches here can be kind of scary, and while it’s a great movie for the whole family, I didn’t think it was reduced to Disney-flavored pablum. What did you think about that, Michael?

MA: I agree.

It’s funny because JACK THE GIANT SLAYER was rated PG-13, and OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL was rated PG, yet OZ has more of an edge than JACK!  Now, there are more battle scenes in JACK than there are in OZ, but Oscar has more flaws than anyone in JACK, and the witches and even the baboons are scarier than the giants in JACK.

Nonetheless, to my surprise, since I hadn’t been looking forward to this one, I really enjoyed OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL.  Sam Raimi can add another notch to his belt because he’s made yet another classic movie.

I give it three and a half knives.

LS: Well, I have to admit, I’m amazed by your reaction, because you have gone on record as saying you don’t like THE WIZARD OF OZ.

MA:  I’m just as amazed.

LS:  And yet the reason why this new OZ is so good, is because it sticks to the original story so well. It makes a good companion piece to the 1939 film, and I wouldn’t be surprised if kids of the future get exposed to both films together, the way we got exposed to THE WIZARD OF OZ as children. Despite your dislike of the original, I remember it being a big deal as a kid. It was shown on television just once a year, and EVERYONE seemed to watch it, and make it a special occasion. Videotape wasn’t around yet, so you couldn’t watch the movie whenever you wanted.  You had to wait. And that created an anticipation around it that made it seem very special.

With a movie that is such an important part of a lot of people’s childhoods, it’s going to be very tough to make something new that can stand alongside it. And yet, I think Sam Raimi has done a terrific job here.

I don’t think OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is a perfect film. I don’t think everything works, and there are moments when it seems stilted or that it’s trying too hard to be clever. And not all of the characters are equally interesting. While I like Rachel Weisz a lot, I didn’t find her Evanora all that interesting, even though she was crucial to the storyline (and Weisz seems to do what she can with the role). I don’t think all of the special effects are equally good – but that only makes sense, because they’re so expensive to do. I think Finley the monkey is amazing, for example, but I was less impressed with the flying baboons that Evanor commands. And I still think that THE WIZARD OF OZ packs more of an emotional wallop. In comparison, the new OZ is a love tap, but a very good one.

I also give it three and a half out of five knives (and,just to put things in perspective, if I had to rate the original WIZARD OF OZ, it would get four and a half or maybe even five knives).

By the way, this isn’t Disney’s first trip to Oz since the 1939 original. In 1985, there was a sequel called RETURN TO OZ, with Fairuza Balk as Dorothy, It was rather dark and I liked it a lot. But it wasn’t an all-star blockbuster like this one. I think the world of Oz still has a lot of potential – there are so many stories and characters created by L. Frank Baun that haven’t been tapped into yet.

(They reach the gates of the Emerald City. A GUARD waits outside)

GUARD: Halt! Who goes there.

LS: Hey, wait a minute, you’re Bruce Campbell, right?

GUARD: Of course not, I’m Winkie the Gatekeeper!

LS: I saw Bruce Campbell’s name in the credits, but I didn’t see him anywhere. I was sure he was Winkie.

GUARD: You are sorely mistaken.

LS: Rats! I always wanted to meet Bruce Campbell. Speaking of Bruce and director Sam Raimi, I wonder if the remake of their classic EVIL DEAD (1981) will be any good.

MA: That doesn’t come out til next month!  (to GUARD) Hey, will you mind letting us in?  We’ve come a long way.

GUARD: Well, boo hoo for you. No one goes inside today! The Emerald City is under renovation.

LS: Double Rats!

MA: Oh well, I guess we’re headed back home.

LS: Can we at least take a hot-air balloon this time?

-END-

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda & L.L Soares

Michael Arruda gives OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL ~ three and a half knives!

LL Soares gives OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL ~three and a half knives, as well.

1 Comment »

JOHN DIES AT THE END (2013)

Posted in 2013, Apocalyptic Films, Bizarro Movies, CGI, Cinema Knife Fights, Dark Comedies, ESP, Fun Stuff!, Heightened Abilities, Highly Stylized Films, Just Plain Fun, Just Plain Weird, LL Soares Reviews, Monsters, Plot Twists, Psychic Powers, Something Different, Twisted, Unusual Films with tags , , , , , , , , on February 11, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: JOHN DIES AT THE END (2013)
By L.L. Soares (with a guest appearance by Michael Arruda)

John-Dies-at-the-End-poster

(THE SCENE: An all-night Chinese restaurant at midnight. DAVID WONG —looking a lot like actor Chase Williamson—sits in a booth. MICHAEL ARRUDA and LL SOARES enter and sit down across from him)

WONG: I didn’t think you’d make it.

LS: We’re professionals. Of course we made it.

WONG: Did anyone follow you?

MA: No, I made sure to drive erratically to throw anyone off our trail.

LS: You drove like that on purpose?

MA: Of course I did.

LS: Yeah, sure.

WONG: Enough of your bickering. I only have a limited time to tell you all about the soy sauce and the creatures from another dimension and the remarkable Dr. Albert Marconi.

LS: No need. We just saw the movie. We’re all up to date.

WONG: Are you sure? Did you watch the right movie?

LS: Of course we did!

MA: Calm down. Why don’t you tell him what you saw?

LS: Okay, sure. The movie JOHN DIES AT THE END is the tale of David Wong, who looked just like you…

(WONG nods)

LS: Wong is in a restaurant, just like this one, telling his tale to a reporter named Arnie Blondestone (Paul Giamatti). It’s about how he was pulled into a secret plan to save the Earth, along with his friend John (Rob Mayes), who sings in a punk rock band called Three Armed Sally.

Wong’s story begins with a chance meeting with a Jamaican guy at a party named Robert Marley, who tells David several things he should not know. Later that night, or rather the next morning at 3am, David is awoken by a call from his friend John, begging for help. He goes to help John battle some supernatural baddies and then ends up in a police station where a detective tells him that the night before, a bunch of people went to the trailer of a certain Robert Marley after a party and four are missing, the rest are dead, and John is a suspect. David has no clue what is going on, but a phone call from John (that was made the night before but just reaches him now) tells him he needs to get out of there. But he has to fight a man who appears to be a cop (but isn’t) first.

To explain beyond this (early) point would be kind of pointless. JOHN DIES AT THE END isn’t that kind of linear, straight-forward movie that caters to an easy synopsis. Suffice to say that David Wong goes on an adventure that involves a girl named Amy (Fabianne Therese) who has one prosthetic hand, her dog Bark Lee, Dave’s friend Fred (Jimmy Wong), a white rapper wannabe named Justin White (Jonny Weston), the world-famous magician Dr. Marconi (Clancy Brown), and John, who dies early on in the movie, but doesn’t exactly stay dead.

The catalyst for all this is a drug called “soy sauce” (because that’s what it looks like). When you take it, either it creates vivid hallucinations or opens your mind to realities we aren’t normally aware of. I’m not saying which. It’s also alive and when ingested it either kills you, or uses you for its own purposes. And those purposes ultimately involve a plot by people in an alternate world who worship a living machine called Korrok (voiced by Kevin Michael Richardson), and their desire to enter our plane of existence and make our world like theirs—a horrible place that lives only to serve Korrok.

The movie was based on the novel by David Wong…

(WONG nods)

LS: …this is getting a little confusing.

The movie is pretty good. mainly because you’re never sure what is going to happen next. I liked the fast, witty repartee in this one, and the rapid-fire pacing. A lot of times critics compare certain movies to amusement park rides, like roller coasters, but this movie lives up to the comparison.

It was directed by the great Don Coscarelli, who also gave us the classic PHANTASM (1979), THE BEASTMASTER (1982) and BUBBA HO-TEP (2002), and he does another cracker jack job here, bringing the novel to life.

The cast is pretty solid. I liked Chase Williamson as Wong a lot, he was a strong central character here…

(WONG nods)

LS: And the great Paul Giamatti rarely gives a bad performance. He’s good here, too, but his character is mostly around so Wong can tell him his story (and in the process, tell us). Rob Mayes, who plays John, might be familiar to some people from TV shows like the new version of 90210 and THE CLIENT LIST. And Clancy Brown, as the all-powerful Marconi, has been in tons of stuff from THE ADVENTURES OF BUCKAROO BONZAI ACROSS THE 8TH DIMENSION (1984) to THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994) to STARSHIP TROOPERS (1997) and lots of television shows. I thought he was especially good in the sadly short-lived HBO series CARNIVALE (2003 – 2005), where he played Brother Justin Crowe.

Other recognizable faces include Angus Scrimm (the “Tall Man” from the PHANTASM movies) as a priest named Father Shellnut. And Doug Jones—mostly known for roles where he’s not so recognizable, including Abe Sapien in the HELLBOY movies, the Faun and the Pale Man from PAN’S LABYRINTH, 2006, and the Silver Surfer in FANTASTIC 4: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER, 2007—plays a strange alien being named Roger North.

The cast is really good and the story gives us a good mix of thrills and laughs. The sheer unpredictable nature of the movie is what makes it so unique and enjoyable. Not everything is perfect—but for the most part I thought it worked really well. I give it three knives. People should check this one out.

WONG: Just three, huh?

LS: Errr…Tell him what you thought of it, Michael?

MA: I didn’t see it.

LS: What are you talking about? Of course you saw it. You were telling me all about it in the ride up here.

MA: Sorry. You must be mistaken.

(MA begins to make strange noises)

WONG: I think there’s something wrong with your friend.

(MA suddenly turns into a gooey monster with writhing tentacles)

LS: That wasn’t Michael at all! I’ve been tricked!

(WONG pulls out a gun and blasts the creature, which disintegrates.)

LS: Whew. That was a close call.

WONG: Your mission has been compromised. They’re on to us.

LS: I guess that means I better leave, huh?

WONG: Do what you want, but I’m out of here.

(WONG disappears)

LS: Wow. Neat trick.

(LS waves waitress over and lifts a menu)

LS: I’ll have number 4 and number 15 to go, and make it quick. Okay?

WAITRESS: Right away, sir.

LS (to audience): Well, at least this wasn’t a total loss.

© Copyright 2013 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives JOHN DIES AT THE END ~three knives.

1 Comment »

BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW (2010)

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2012, Bizarro Movies, Cult Movies, Experimental Films, Highly Stylized Films, LL Soares Reviews, Mad Doctors!, Mind Experiments!, Paranormal, Psychedelic Films, Telekinesis, Visions of Hell, Weird Movies with tags , , , , , , , on June 13, 2012 by knifefighter

BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW (2010)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

After watching Ridley Scott’s new blockbuster, PROMETHEUS, I took a train to the other side of town to see a movie that was, in many ways, its complete opposite. Low-budget, often badly acted, and just plain bizarre, Panos Cosmatos’ new film, BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW is a viewing experience of a completely different sort. But I don’t want to give the impression I didn’t like it. There were some parts of it that I liked very much.

Supposedly made in 2010, BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW has recently been doing the midnight movie circuit in some cities. I originally saw it listed as part of the Boston Underground Film Festival a month or so ago. I’d wanted to see it, but couldn’t. And now it’s back for a few weekend showings at a local art theater. So, for many people, it’s a new release. I know, for me it was. I also know that, based on the title alone, and a brief synopsis that highlighted a psychedelic storyline, I really had to see this one for myself.

The movie begins with an instructional video from Dr. Mercurio Arboria, for the Arboria Institute, which promotes emotional happiness and peace of mind. Supposedly, a visit to the foundation will include pharmacology, meditation and other fun stuff, in a regimen designed to help people find true inner happiness. Sounds pleasant enough. This video looked a bit dated and reminded me of the instructional videos that were made by the Dharma Initiative on the TV series LOST. Kind of an interesting way to start things off.

The movie’s credits begin, showing a giant, pulsating eyeball, with the actors and crews’ names coming forth from the eye’s pupil. It’s actually a cool opening credit sequence, and a cool image overall. I thought it was a good sign this was going to be a lot of fun.

Then the movie starts. It’s 1983. The foundation is being run by Dr. Arboria’s associate, Barry Nyle (Michael Rogers). But strangely, despite that cool promotional video, there’s only one patient in the whole building—or, if there are more patients, we never see them. The patient’s name is Elena (Eva Allan), and she’s a young girl around 19 or 20, who is dressed in a hospital gown and has long, brunette hair (she almost looks like those long-haired ghosts from movies like THE RING and THE GRUDGE). Elena does not speak, and appears to be in some kind of depressed/almost comatose state. Each day she is brought into a room to sit on a plastic seat, while in another, facing room, separated by a sheet of Plexiglas, Dr. Nyle talks to her. He talks and talks, but she never responds. He must have a lot of time to spend trying to help her, since there don’t seem to be any other patients for him to attend to.

For the first half of the film, this takes up most of the time. Elena is repeatedly brought into the room, Dr. Nyle repeatedly talks to her and gets no response. There are point-of-view shots of us going down an orange, antiseptic hallway. Its repetition seems almost aggravating at times. The dialogue is actually kind of silly, and the acting isn’t very good. There were more than a few times when I laughed out loud. Everyone else in the audience was quiet. I don’t think they appreciated the movie’s goofiness.

A few times, Dr. Nyle goes home to his wife Rosemary (Marilyn Norry), whom he either lectures or ignores. When she speaks, he makes goofy faces. There doesn’t seem much of a point to what’s going on.

Dr. Nyle (Michael Rogers) controls everything in the Arboria Institute.            Or does he? (from BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW)

There is a female nurse who clearly dislikes Elena. And we eventually learn that Elena has CARRIE-like telekinetic powers. There are also strange robots, that look like men in space suits with television screens in their bellies, called Sentionauts (it says so on the computer screen that activates them). They patrol the foundation’s halls after hours, especially if Elena leaves her room.

Then, about half-way through, something happens. We go back to 1966. Dr. Arboria, along with a female assistant, are shown in reverse negative (everything is strikingly white, and we can barely see people’s features). Dr. Nyle is prepped to enter another dimension, or at least that’s what it seemed to me. All white, he submerges himself in a giant puddle of inky blackness, and goes out the other side, where he turns different colors and his skin melts!! When he comes back, he is transformed. Slimy and black with ooze, he infects the female assistant, and she gives birth to a baby, before she suddenly dies. Could this baby be Elena? (!).

Back in 1983, Dr. Arboria, the head of the foundation, has become an drooling invalid/drug addict, who isn’t capable of doing much for himself. Dr. Nyle has to look after him, and even administer his heroin (morphine?) injections. Dr. Nyle has the true power at the institute and he clearly likes to manipulate those around him.

At one point, Dr. Nyle has kind of a breakdown and removes his wig (revealing a shiny bald head) and puts on a strange leather suit. While he is gone, Elena attempts to escape the facility.

BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW is a mixed bag, but I could definitely see it becoming a cult movie over time. Parts of it are so bad, it made me think of movies like Tommy Wiseau’s THE ROOM, and I think RAINBOW could benefit from an audience that interacts with it. It might make for a much more enjoyable experience. There are other times when the imagery is actually pretty interesting. But never once did I feel that the movie lived up to the promise of that great title—except maybe for the very strange events that occur in 1966.

The music, by Jeremy Schmidt, is mostly a droning synthesizer score, and it does get repetitive at times, but overall, it works. There are even parts where it gets more animated. The music was one of my favorite parts of the film, and definitely complemented the psychedelic feel of the proceedings.

The over-use of different kinds of filters in the film, and negative effects, seem like an amateur’s attempts at creating otherworldly visuals—or someone trying to transcend a miniscule budget—and there are moments when it feels like a student fim. There are also lots of close-ups on inanimate objects that go on a little too long. Despite the fact that it really is not a very good movie, there were parts of BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW that I enjoyed despite myself, and, as I said, there are several times when I found myself laughing—even though that probably was not what the director intended.

BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW, for the most part, might be one of those “so bad they’re good” movies for a new generation. It plays things completely straight (to its benefit), but is probably campy enough to attract a rabid audience.  I haven’t seen anything this odd (and yet enjoyable) in a long time, and it reminded me how movies like this were much easier to find in the 1970s and 80s. It made me miss those times.

A movie like this is hard to rate, because it’s clearly not meant to be a normal, mainstream narrative film. And, even as I write this, I find myself enjoying the movie now more, in retrospect, than when I was sitting in the theater. Despite its very obvious flaws, I give BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW, two and a half knives. And I’m sure its imagery will grow on me over time and this rating will improve…..

This might just be the kind of film that deserves to be revisited on Blu-ray.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

L.L. Soares gives BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW~ two and a half knives! But it’s such an odd movie, that rating may change over time.

2 Comments »

Meals for Monsters: SANTA SANGRE (1989)

Posted in 2012, Classic Films, Highly Stylized Films, Jenny Orosel Columns, Just Plain Weird, Madness, Meals for Monsters, Religious Cults, Surrealism with tags , , , , , on February 1, 2012 by knifefighter

MEALS FOR MONSTERS: SANTA SANGRE (1989)
By Jenny Orosel

 

I have to preface this by saying just how much I love Alejandro Jodorowsky.  The man is insane.  Beautifully, wonderfully insane, and it’s reflected in his movies.  Watching one of his movies is like going to a four star restaurant in a foreign country—you may not understand all of what you’re consuming, but my God, it might be one of the best things you’ve ever consumed.  That’s how I feel about his movies.  And it thrills me to come up with a delicious meal for SANTA SANGRE (1989).

SANTA SANGRE was the last movie Jodorowsky directed (well, there was one work-for-hire the year after, but he refuses to acknowledge it, so I shall not) before moving into the realm of comics.  Our hero, the young Fenix, grew up in a circus but has been in a mental institution since, years earlier as a child, he saw his father cut off his mother’s arms before killing himself.  He stayed there in willing silence until his armless mother helps him escape.  They make a good living doing a mime act, but Mom’s got a grudge and, since she doesn’t have the hands to do it herself, forces the sad Fenix to murder beautiful women for her.  It sounds like a simple slasher flick.  However, this is nothing like any splatterpunk you’ve seen before.  There’s enough blatant symbolism to make Freud weep.  Temptation is a running theme (the family mime act is about the Garden of Eden), poor Fenix has strange hallucinations of white doves and giant snakes growing from his crotch.  And the ever-present holiness of blood.

It makes sense that, for a cocktail, to mix up a few Santa Sangrias:

SANTA SANGRIA

 

Ingredients:
Chopped fruit
Seltzer water
Cheap red wine.

Directions:

Drop a handful of the chopped fruit into the glass.  Fill half with red wine and half with seltzer water.  Enjoy.

The opening scene of Fenix in the institution shows them trying to get him to eat a meal like a normal person.  When that fails, they offer him a whole fish, which he devours.  While I’m not going to have you serve up anything with a face or eyes, I think fish would be an appropriate main course:

BLOOD ORANGE BAKED COD (serves four)

Ingredients:
4 pieces cod
2 blood oranges
1 stick butter
Salt, pepper & dried parsley to taste

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.  Melt the butter.  Juice one of the blood oranges and mix with the butter.  Dip each piece of cod in the mixture, coating it, and place in baking pan.  Drizzle some of the excess onto the fish.  Salt, pepper and parsley to taste.  Slice remaining blood orange and place one slice on each piece of fish.  Bake for 30 minutes.  Serve with rice, potatoes or toast.

With all the temptation symbolism, it should come as no surprise that apples are in a number of scenes.  Why not, for dessert, have some apple dumplings?

GARDEN OF EDEN APPLE DUMPLINGS: (serves four)

 

Ingredients:
4 apples
2 sheets puff pastry, thawed if frozen
¼ cup brown sugar
2 tbs cinnamon
1 beaten egg with a splash of water

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 425 degrees.  Peel and core the apples.  Cut each sheet of puff pastry in half.  Mix the brown sugar and cinnamon.  Place the apple in the center of the pastry, fill the core hole with the sugar/cinnamon mix, and sprinkle a little extra on top.  Bring the corners up, pinch them closed and seal up the sides.  Place on greased baking sheet.  Brush the egg over the dumpling and bake at 425 for ten minutes.  Lower the temperature to 375 and bake an additional 20 minutes.  Serve warm.

If you’ve heard of Alejandro Jodorowsky but never seen any of his movies, this is a great one to start with.  It has all his signature style and weirdness, but the plot is the most linear of any of his movies (minus that one film-that-shall-not-be-named).  If you’re willing to sit through a little weirdness, you won’t be disappointed.  Or, at least, you’ll have a yummy meal to get you through the night.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

2 Comments »

FAREWELL TO DIRECTOR KEN RUSSELL

Posted in Art Movies, Classic Films, LL Soares Reviews, Obituaries and Appreciations, 2011, Highly Stylized Films with tags , , , , , on November 29, 2011 by knifefighter

FAREWELL TO KEN RUSSELL
An Appreciation by L.L. Soares

British director Ken Russell died yesterday (Sunday, November 27, 2011) With a long and often controversial career, Russell was definitely a one-of-a-kind talent. He began making TV movies for the BBC and then moved to features. Just some of his great films include:

WOMEN IN LOVE (1969). His adaptation of D.H. Lawrence’s novel got Glenda Jackson an Oscar and featured a controversial nude wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates!

THE DEVILS (1971). His most controversial film, involving a convent full of demon-possessed nuns (or is it a case of sexual hysteria?)

TOMMY (1975). Perhaps his best-known film, TOMMY is the film version of The Who’s rock opera, in all its over-the-top glory.

ALTERED STATES (1980). William Hurt locks himself away in a sensory-deprivation tank and gets in touch with his inner ape-man and his future energy monster in this cult classic, with a script by the great Paddy Chayefsky.

CRIMES OF PASSION (1984). Another underrated cult classic, this time with Kathleen Turner as a hooker and Anthony Perkins as the psychotic gentleman obsessed with her.

GOTHIC (1986). Lord Byron, Mary Shelley, Percy Bysshe Shelley and friends sit around telling ghost stories (which will lead to Mary writing her novel, “Frankenstein”) in this stylized historical drama.

LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (1988). Amanda Donohoe as a vampire in this adaptation of the novel by Bram Stoker. With Hugh Grant. Look for the game of Snakes and Ladders!

THE RAINBOW (1989). Another D.H. Lawrence adaptation, this time with young schoolteacher Sammi Davis and her sexual awakening.

WHORE (1991). Russell’s answer to Gary Marshall’s hooker fantasy, PRETTY WOMAN (1990), stars Theresa Russell and aims to show us what being a prostitute is really like.

Russell also did tons of biopics about classical composers and artists including: THE MUSIC LOVERS (1970) with Richard Chamberlain as Tchaikovsky; MAHLER (1970) with Robert Powell as Gustav Mahler, LISZTOMANIA (1975) with The Who’s Roger Daltrey as Franz Liszt; and SAVAGE MESSIAH (1972) with Scott Antony as French sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska.

Ken Russell followed his own personal vision in everything he did, and he was definitely the kind of director you would either love or hate. Some of us here at Cinema Knife Fight thought he was pretty damn great.

He will be missed.

6 Comments »

IMMORTALS

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Action Movies, Barbarian Movies, Fantasy, Highly Stylized Films, LL Soares Reviews with tags , , , , , , , on November 15, 2011 by knifefighter

IMMORTALS (2011)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

So, I had seen the trailer for IMMORTALS a few times and had zero expectations for this film. It looked like a rip-off of Zach Snyder’s 300 (2006), with some CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010) thrown in for good measure. In other words, there was a chance this one could be a snoozefest. But then I found out that Tarsem Singh directed it, and I was suddenly curious to see it.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the name, Tarsem Singh is the guy who directed THE CELL (2000), about people entering the mind of a serial killer. It was visually fascinating, and starred Jennifer Lopez (in one of her few good movies) and Vincent D’Onofrio as the comatose killer. It wasn’t a perfect movie, but it had some pretty striking imagery. His second film, THE FALL (2006), continued to mark him as a director with a unique vision (Read Dan Keohane’s review of THE FALL here). And now we’ve got IMMORTALS.

It goes without saying that this movie is great to look at.  That’s what Singh is all about. But what about the story?

Well, it’s kind of a mixture of original ideas and Greek mythology. It all begins with a battle between the gods and the Titans. The Titans are exiled to earth after they lose the war – encased in a big metal block and held together with steel rods.

Cut to King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), who despises the gods since they did nothing to save his wife and child from death. In retaliation, he dons a mask, builds an army of savage warriors and decides to sweep the earth, slaughtering all those who oppose him. His ultimate plan, however, is to find the fabled Epiurus Bow (that creates its own exploding arrows!) and free the Titans, so they can wreck their vengeance on the same gods Hyperion despises so much.

The hero of this piece is Theseus (Henry Cavill, who is currently filming THE MAN OF STEEL, due out in 2013, wherein he will play Superman), a peasant with a will of iron and muscles to match, who is an outcast among his own people. When he sees his mother killed in front of him by Hyperion, he vows revenge of his own.

But Theseus isn’t just any muscle-bound peasant. He’s a favorite of the gods, Zeus (Luke Evans) in particular. In this film, the gods look like a bunch of Calvin Klein models lounging around in the clouds, watching humankind below.

While the gods watch Theseus’s every move, they are vowed to stay out of the affairs of humans (breaking this rule is supposed to bring them death), unless the Titans are released again, and you can see where everything comes full circle.

Along the way, Theseus comes upon a virgin oracle, Phaedra (Freida Pinto), who can see the future, and who becomes his love interest, and Stavros (Stephen Dorff), a thief who becomes Theseus’s right hand man.

There are a lot of battle scenes, either characters fighting one another, or armies clashing, and they’re all done pretty well. They’re also pretty gory. By the time you start wondering why this movie is rated R, you’ll suddenly notice heads getting splattered with sledgehammers and bodies getting cut in half by swords, and realize that this movie earned its rating with blood.

In deference to actual mythology, there’s even a scene in a labyrinth, and a minotaur of sorts for Theseus to battle. I actually thought this was an interesting take on the story, because instead of an actual minotaur with the head of a bull, we get a giant of a man who wears a barbed-wire mask in the shape of a bull. Hyperion refers to him as “The Beast” (Robert Maillet) and at one point sends him off to kill Theseus. The resulting battle is very well done. In another bull reference, the Beast, when we first see him, tends to a fire beneath a giant iron bull, which we just know is a pressure cooker used to cook prisoners alive, long before someone actually cracks it open to find out.

Singh does it all with a very painterly touch. Much like 300, it’s CGI used to create an entire world, but Singh is a much more creative director than Zack Snyder, so the images and story are a bit more interesting this time. I thought it started out a little slow, but once we get to the action scenes, it livens up immensely. Mickey Rourke does an enjoyable job playing the heavy in this one. Cavill is serviceable enough as a Spartacus wannabe. And Pinto does a good job of standing around and looking pretty.

Like other movies of its ilk, the story of IMMORTALS is its weakest link. But it made something like the remake of CLASH OF THE TITANS look even weaker in comparison. Mythology, it seems, is hot again, and so far Singh has given us the best recent movie version.

This one is also in theaters in both 3D and 2D versions. I saw it in 3D, and it was fine, but 3D still fails to astound me, and I’m sure it would have been just as dazzling to look at in 2D. So save your money if you can.

I’m on the fence about what kind of rating to give this one. I’m waffling between giving it two and a half knives and three knives, and it basically comes down to, if this kind of movie sounds good to you, check it out, and if you’re not so sure, wait for the rental version.

IMMORTALS is a decent enough film, but no masterpiece. Which isn’t to say that Tarsem Singh isn’t capable of making great movies. He’s someone I plan to keep my eye on. In the meantime, even his flawed films are worth seeing.

© Copyright 2011 by L. L. Soares

L.L. Soares gives IMMORTALS ~ two and a half knives (or three knives, depending on his mood)

(Note: The horror movie 11-11-11 was also due out this weekend – as mentioned in this month’s “COMING ATTRACTIONS” column, but it must have been in very limited release, since none of our staff was able to find it.)

Leave A Comment »

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS – NOVEMBER 2011

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Apocalyptic Films, Cinema Knife Fights, Coming Attractions, Highly Stylized Films, Horror, R-Rated Comedy, Vampires, Werewolves with tags , , , , , , , on November 4, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS
NOVEMBER 2011
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: A beach full of bikini-clad college girls on Spring Break, and yeah, there are guys on the beach too, and they’re not wearing bikinis.  L.L. SOARES sits on a beach chair wearing an oversized pair of 3-D glasses.  MICHAEL ARRUDA approaches him, sipping some lemonade.)

MA:  This sure is a strange setting for November.  And shouldn’t you be wearing sunglasses, not 3D glasses?

LS:  I’m wearing 3D glasses because I’m getting ready to see two 3D movies this month, A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS, and later in the month, the much anticipated sequel, PIRANHA 3DD.  And what’s this I hear that you might miss both these movies?

MA:  Well, I hope not to, but November is shaping up to be a strange month for me.  First up, on November 4, as you said, it’s A VERY HAROLD & KUMAR 3D CHRISTMAS (2011).  I know very little about these movies, so why don’t you start us off.

LS:  Harold and Kumar are a couple of stoner guys who have had a couple of previous adventures in HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE (2004) and HAROLD AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY (2008). I’ve only seen the first one so far, but it was pretty funny. I am curious to see what trouble the guys get into for their Christmas movie. I’m not usually a fan of holiday-themed movies, but this one could be fun.

MA:  Well, the trailer is hilarious, so if I do get a chance to see it, I’ll be looking forward to it.

Next up, on November 11, we’ll be reviewing 11-11-11 (2011), a neat looking horror movie that could go either way— could be really stupid, or it might just be a pleasant surprise.  I’ve seen a couple of trailers for this movie I thought were just mediocre, and I’ve seen a couple where the film looks pretty cool, so we’ll find out.

It’s written and directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, the guy who directed SAW II (2005), SAW III (2006), and SAW IV (2007).  Gag!  I’m sure you’re more excited about this connection than I am.

LS:  Eh, I dunno. The SAW movies were a bit of a snooze overall, but this one could be okay. I don’t know an awful lot about it, except that the number 11 shows up a lot and it has something to do with the possibility of a doorway opening from Hell into our world, or something. But I guess I’m curious about it. I just hope it’s better than the Jim Carrey “obsessed with numbers” movie – THE NUMBER 23 (2007)

MA:  We’ll both be at a convention and book signing that weekend in New Hampshire, and so there is an ever so slight possibility that we might not review this one.

LS:  The horror!! Yeah, we’re going to have to play that weekend by ear.

MA:  But something tells me we’ll find a way.   Also opening that weekend is IMMORTALS (2011), a rather silly looking movie.  We hope to have someone reviewing this one as well.

LS:  Yeah, hopefully someone will be brave enough to review IMMORTALS.  It looks kind of hokey to me – definitely “inspired” by the look and feel of the movie 300 – but it is directed by Tarsem Sing, who previously gave us such visual spectacles as THE CELL (2000) and THE FALL (2006), so maybe it won’t be as one-dimensional and boring as it looks in the trailer.

(Suddenly, there is wailing and moaning, as a great dark cloud appears over the beach, blocking out the sun.  People on the beach start screaming and run away in panic.)

LS:  What is it?  A great white shark? A school of piranhas, maybe?

MA:   Nah, it’s just TWILIGHT:  BREAKING DAWN PART 1 (2011).  Yep, folks, it’s the fourth movie in the TWILIGHT SAGA, in all its boring glory.  Even better, they had to split this one into two parts.  Oh goodie!  (More screaming from the beach.)  This horror (fights back tears) opens on November 18.

I can’t believe we’re going to sit through another one of these turkeys.

(THANKSGIVING TURKEY runs by.)

TURKEY:  Hey, don’t insult me!

LS (holding an axe):  Keep running Butterball!  I’m hungry!

TURKEY:  Gulp!  (Flees)

MA:  I really have nothing I want to say about TWILIGHT:  BREAKING DAWN PART 1 other than I’m dreading it.  Seldom have I been as bored in the movie theater as I’ve been watching these TWILIGHT movies.  Maybe I’ll bring a book with me this time.

LS:  The thing is, I hate these movies, too, and I can’t wait until they’re done. But people seem to enjoy it when we review the TWILIGHT movies and tear them apart. So I guess we’ll be going to see the final two after all. I hope BREAKING DAWN is better than the previous movies in the series, but I’m not betting on it.

And we wrap up November with PIRANHA 3DD (2011), which opens on November 23.  This time around, it’s directed by John Gulager, who gave us the low-budget FEAST movies (the first one was in 2005) -I guess Alexandre Aja, director of the last PIRANHA movie, was too busy this time. I like Gulager and I like the franchise, so I’m expecting this one to be a lot of fun, but I’m pretty sure you hated the last one.

MA:  Yeah, I didn’t like the last one all that much.  I thought it was too interested in boobs and gore, rather than thrills and chills.

Anyway, this happens to be Thanksgiving weekend, and since I’ll be spending it with family, I might miss this one.

LS: Yeah, since that’s a holiday weekend, we might have to play that one by ear, too. Very busy month ahead of us, I guess.

MA: Well, that wraps things up here. And look, the sun’s coming back out.  It looks like it’s going to be a good beach day after all.

LS (looking around and seeing an empty beach):  But where is everybody?  The sun’s out, and we’re finished talking about TWILIGHT.

MA:  Maybe they’re worried about PIRANHA.  I’m sure they’ll be back soon.  It is kinda weird though.  Oh well.  We’ll see you folks next time.

(Camera pans to reveal a horde of Thanksgiving turkeys all carrying axes standing behind MA & LS.)

LS:  Ever get the feeling you’re being watched?

—END—

Leave A Comment »

DRIVE

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Art Movies, Cars!, Cinema Knife Fights, Crime Films, Highly Stylized Films, The Mob, Thrillers with tags , , , , , on September 19, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: DRIVE (2011)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

 

(THE SCENE: A silver Chevy Impala parked on the street. MICHAEL ARRUDA is at the wheel. Two thugs sit in the back seat.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA (to thugs): You have five minutes. Everything that happens within that five minutes, I’m yours. After that, you’re on your own. Now go.

(Thugs put on bright red hats, grab their pizza boxes, and dash out of the car. They each race to a separate house.)

MA (to camera): Now, that’s what I call an efficient pizza delivery service! If these guys don’t make it back to the car within five minutes, they walk home, without pay, tips included. And if they give me any grief (flashes gun) they go home in a body bag, or if we’re out of bags, a giant pizza box. Either way, they’re not going home happy, since they’ll be dead.

(Another car, this one a big, black Cadillac pulls next to the Chevy Impala. L.L. SOARES is at the wheel, and two even bigger THUGS sit in the back seat of this car as well.)

L.L. SOARES (to his THUGS): Okay, you have— two minutes.

THUG # 1: Two? You said five before?

LS: Well, I changed my mind. Hey, you dummies going to sit there and argue, or are you going to do the job? The clock’s ticking,

(THUGS move to exit the car, but find the doors are locked.)

THUGS: What the—?

LS: You didn’t think I was going to make this easy on you, did you? Hey, if you work for me, you gotta earn it!

THUG # 2: Earn it? We can’t get out of the car!

LS: Two big strong apes like you, and you can’t get out of a car? I don’t think you guys are the real deal. Maybe you ought to go into accounting. (Pulls out a huge magnum and aims it at thugs): Can you get out of the car now?

(THUGS kick open doors and jump out of car. They race onto the lawn and tackle the pizza delivery thugs, sending pizza and dollar bills flying everywhere. The four thugs begin to kick the living daylights out of each other.)

MA (rolls down window and addresses LS): Two minutes? You always have to try to one-up me, don’t you?

LS: Not only that, my guys have been instructed to steal your pizzas and deliver them. So we don’t even have to spend money on pizza dough. No overhead.

MA: You realize, this means war!

LS: Bring it on, Pizza Boy!

MA: That’s Pizza MAN to you!

LS: No, PIZZA MAN is a bad Bill Maher movie from 1991.

(MA steps on gas, and the Chevy peels out , racing onto the road, and at the same time, LS steps on his gas pedal, and suddenly both cars are racing down the road at incredible speeds.)

MA (to LS): Hey! While we’re driving, this might be a good time to review this week’s movie, DRIVE (2011).

LS: Sure. Why don’t you go first? I don’t want to crash. (Barely misses running over a pedestrian)

MA: What? You can’t drive and review a movie at the same time?

LS: I can do better than that! (LS is suddenly driving, texting, and talking on a cell phone all at the same time.)

MA: Show off! Anyway, today we’re reviewing DRIVE, the new action thriller starring Ryan Gosling.

Gosling plays a character known simply as The Driver, which reminded me immediately of a 1970s movie, THE DRIVER (1978) in which Ryan O’Neal also played a character named The Driver who also drove getaway cars, but the thing I remember most—and liked the most— in that movie was Bruce Dern being cast against type as The Detective, the guy who’s out to catch The Driver.

LS: Maybe Dern stood out because Ryan O’Neal was never much of an actor. I know Ryan Gosling could act circles around him.

MA: Anyway, back to this Driver. Gosling’s Driver drives getaway cars when he’s not working as a stunt driver in the movies or as a mechanic at a local garage for his friend Shannon (Bryan Cranston).

LS: Where does he find the time?

MA: In the film’s stylish pre-credit sequence, we learn exactly how The Driver operates. He gives his associates five minutes to pull off the job, and if they make it back to him in five minutes, he’ll drive them, and if they don’t, he’s gone. And once he drives, he’s one cool cucumber, and, as his friend Shannon describes him, he’s never seen anyone as gifted behind the wheel.

When he’s not working, The Driver can’t help but notice his very cute neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her little boy, who live in the apartment next to him. They become friends, and soon they start spending lots of time together, and it’s obvious that The Driver and Irene have feelings for each other, even though she’s married, and her husband’s in prison. When her husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) returns home from prison, he finds that he can’t shake his past, and suddenly his family’s life is threatened if he doesn’t do another job. The Driver offers to help Standard pull off the job in order to protect Irene and her son.

Meanwhile, The Driver’s buddy and employer Shannon makes a deal with a local “businessman”(read “loan shark”) named Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks, in a deliciously dark performance) to borrow money from Rose in order to pay for a race car to be driven by The Driver. Rose and his partner Nino (Ron Perlman) are cold-hearted, brutal men who don’t take anything very lightly.

These two storylines cross when Standard’s robbery attempt goes wrong, and The Driver suddenly finds himself having to take on Rose and Nino in order to protect Irene and her son, as well as himself.

LS: Don’t look now, but here come the police!

(Two black and white police cars are suddenly behind them in high speed pursuit.)

MA: This is what I’m talking about! (Steps on gas and car speeds up even faster. LS accelerates his car as well.)

Anyway, I liked DRIVE a lot. While I called this one an action thriller, it’s really not in the traditional sense of the term. It doesn’t have massive explosions, elaborate gun battles, and beefed up heroes running around kicking the crap out of the bad guys. This one is much more stylish and subtle than all that, and I found it better for it.

The exciting pre-credit sequence captures the feel of this movie right away. The Driver is a man of few words, and he operates as if he’s an extension of the car. There’s something quiet about these scenes. You feel as if you’re inside the car with him, as you hear the engine sounds from the inside rather than the outside.

As a man of few words, The Driver doesn’t do a whole lot of talking with Irene, yet they share strong chemistry, and their relationship works. I believed in their feelings for each other. Granted, a lot of the time spent in the movie on their relationship is slow-paced, but the entire film has a deliberate pace, and so this didn’t bother me all that much.

LS: Gosling is so good that he speaks volumes with very few words. Despite the fact that The Driver is so taciturn, he communicates just fine. Although, you do wonder sometimes what is going through that mind of his. Which makes it all the more unpredictable.

MA: Once The Driver offers to help Standard, and things don’t go as planned, the movie takes off and never looks back, hitting high hear and remaining there. There are some really intense scenes, including a really cool car chase scene, as you would expect, and also some suspenseful fight scenes. The movie also becomes more brutally graphic as it goes along, building more and more tension all the way to its ending, which I found satisfying.

LS (licks lips): Oh yeah, the violence is great in this one.

MA: I really enjoyed the way Nicolas Winding Refn directed this one. I thought it was stylish from start to finish. The car chase scenes were well done, and the violence was sufficiently disturbing but not gratuitous.

I thought the screenplay by Hossein Arnin, based on a book by James Sallis, was excellent, as it also contributed to the style of this movie. The dialogue isn’t the standard action movie dialogue, and these characters aren’t stock action movie characters either. When Standard first meets The Driver, and confronts him about spending time with his wife and son while he was in prison, a lesser movie would have had Standard threaten The Driver, saying something like “stay away from my wife,” but he doesn’t. Yet, you still know he’s uncomfortable and unhappy about the relationship, just by the way he looks.

LS: The guy who wrote the original book, James Sallis, is a really good writer whose style seems cinematic by itself. I’m not surprised it translated so well to the screen. I’m just glad that there was a decent screenwriter who didn’t screw it up.

MA: When Standard is roughed up by some thugs, and The Driver asks him who did this to him, Standard replies, “Why? What are you going to do? Beat them up for me?” Which made me chuckle because I was thinking the same thing. There was something very refreshing about this script.

I also liked that the story was unpredictable. I wasn’t really sure where this story was going or what was going to happen and this remained true all the way down to the film’s final scene. That doesn’t happen very often.

LS: There’s a lot about this movie that isn’t business as usual. Another example is the relationship between The Driver and Irene. Not once do we see them in a hot and heavy sex scene, yet we completely buy that they love each other. Normally this would piss me off, because I think there’s a real Puritanical streak in modern Hollywood movies, but here it actually works. For some reason, you don’t need to see them in the sack to know they really want each other. They yearn for each other.

VOICE FROM ABOVE: This is the police! Pull over! (A police helicopter flies above them).

MA (sticks head out window): Sorry, we can’t pull over. We’re reviewing a movie!

VOICE FROM HELICOPTER: Who do you guys think you are? Cinema Knife Fighters?

LS (sticking head out window): In the flesh! Now go get bent so we can finish our review of this movie!

VOICE FROM HELICOPTER: Oh, well in that case, drive on. Just remember to wear your seatbelts.

MA: Yeah, yeah.

I enjoyed the characters, especially The Driver. I liked the fact that The Driver, as efficiently cool and tough as he was, wasn’t some Sylvester Stallone superguy hero who simply beats the crap out of the bad guys without breaking a sweat. With those types of characters, you know they’re going to come out on top. The Driver was different. He was vulnerable, and so you weren’t sitting there EXPECTING him to blow all the bad guys away. You weren’t so sure, and this worked to the film’s advantage. I thought Ryan Gosling did an excellent job creating this quiet heroic character.

LS: There’s something about existential heroes and fast cars. My favorite action film of last year was FASTER, where Duane “The Rock” Johnson played an amped-up, no-nonsense guy who gets revenge with very few words, and a fast car to get him there. DRIVE is like the smarter version of that movie in some ways. Hell, all of the acting here is top-notch, but Gosling owns the camera every time he’s onscreen.

I’ve been aware of Gosling ever since his mesmerizing performance as a neo-Nazi in 2001’s THE BELIEVER. He was also pretty great as a crack-addicted teacher in HALF-NELSON (2006). He’s an exceptional young actor who is capable of great intensity. DRIVE might just be his best movie yet. The fact that he is able to do so much with so little dialogue is amazing. I can’t praise this guy enough.

MA: But a movie is only as good as its villain, and Albert Brooks as Bernie Rose is every bit as good as he appeared to be in the previews. He’s one cold-hearted son of a bitch. I loved Brooks in this role. He’s GOODFELLAS scary, and he’d make Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci proud. He actually reminded me of someone else in this movie, and I couldn’t put my finger on it. Even now I’m baffled. At times, his performance reminded me of Rod Steiger, but I don’t think that’s who I was thinking of. Anyway, there are lots of good parts about DRIVE, but the best part is Brooks’ performance. It’s Oscar-worthy.

LS: Well, I think Gosling is just as good and his role is just as Oscar-worthy, but it’s a very different performance. Brooks stands out because he is playing against type, and doing a terrific job at it. Remember, Brooks started as a comedian, directing and starring in movies like REAL LIFE (1979) and MODERN ROMANCE (1981). Heck, I remember when he was starting out making short, funny movies for SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE in the early days of that show. But he has come into his own as a dramatic actor. There’s a real likability to Brooks, and he plays off that here perfectly, as a man who seems to be your friend one minute and then turns deadly at the drop of a hat. He really is perfect in this role.

MA: Ron Perlman is also excellent as Rose’s partner Nino, but he’s not as good as Brooks. I enjoyed Carey Mulligan as Irene. She’s good looking, sure, but her quiet performance made her the perfect match for The Driver.

LS: I think Perlman is underrated here. He turns in another great performance. But he’s playing the kind of gangster who is violent and intimidating and who is the exact opposite of Albert Brooks’ character. That’s why their scenes together are so good. Perlman’s Nino is a musclehead who thinks he’s a lot smarter than he is. But he defers to Brooks’s Bernie Rose. Why? Nino appears to be the more threatening bad guy. But Brooks is even scarier, and he sells it. And part of why that works so well is because he has Perlman to play off of. The two have perfect chemistry as the bad guys here.

MA: Hmm, sounds like two other guys we know.

LS: Who?

MA (chuckles): Never mind.

LS: I also really liked Carey Mulligan as Irene. She got a lot of attention from her role in the 2009 film, AN EDUCATION, but it wasn’t a fluke. She’s a really good actress and is perfectly cast here. Like you said, she’s also cute as hell.

Hell, even the kid, Kaden Leos as Benecio, is really good here, and I rarely like child actors.

MA: That’s an understatement. You hate child actors! You’d rather eat them for breakfast than watch them in a movie!

LS: That’s not true at all. I never eat children— for breakfast.

MA: Bryan Cranston does a fine job as The Driver’s friend and employer Shannon. Cranston was just in CONTAGION, and he was very good in that too.

LS: I don’t care about CONTAGION. If you want to see Cranston at his best, just watch the amazing AMC show BREAKING BAD, where he’ll dazzle you every Sunday night as a high school chemistry teacher turned meth cook. This guy has come a long way from playing the goofy dad on MALCOLM IN THE MIDDLE.

MA: And as Irene’s husband Standard, Oscar Isaac, who we saw earlier this year in SUCKER PUNCH (2011) does a nice job. He makes the guy a real person, not just an ordinary ex-convict cliché.

LS: Yeah, Oscar Isaac is good here, too. And don’t forget Christina Hendricks ( who plays the uber-sexy Joan on another AMC series, MAD MEN) as Blanche, a woman who is forced to go along with Standard on his little “mission.” It’s a small role, but Hendricks does a fine job trying to be less glamorous as usual (but hell, glamor is in this lady’s genes) as a woman without many options in her life.

I think the casting here is a big part of why the movie is so good at what it does. With a less-talented cast, DRIVE wouldn’t be half as much fun.

MA: Yep, DRIVE is the real deal. It’s a slick production that is as smooth and polished as a freshly waxed Thunderbird. It draws its audience in immediately, and then moves along with a quiet efficiency on all cylinders, taking them on one fulfilling thrill ride. I give it three and a half knives.

LS: Oh yeah, well I give it four knives. What do you think of that? I loved this movie, and it’s easily one of the best movies we’ve seen this year.

MA: Always trying to one-up me!

What’s sad about this is I saw DRIVE in a theater that was practically empty. I hope people go out and see this one.

(MA and LS suddenly realize they are headed straight for a cliff. They both jump out of their cars at exactly the right moment before the vehicles hurtle to their destruction)

LS (brushes himself off): Well, that was fun.

MA (gets up): Sure was. Now, what?

LS: How about a pizza?

MA: Sounds good. (Pulls out his cell phone). Hello? Guys, you there? Listen, I’m by the cliffs. I want that pizza. You have five minutes.

LS (Pulls out his cell phone): Okay, dummies, listen up. In two minutes—-.

-THE END-

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives DRIVE ~three and a half knives!

LL Soares gives DRIVE ~four knives.

2 Comments »

SUCKER PUNCH!

Posted in 2011, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Dreams, Fantasy Films, Highly Stylized Films, Hot Chick Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 28, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SUCKER PUNCH (2011)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: The skies above a World War I battlefield, filled with fighter planes and huge zeppelins. There are the sounds of gunfire and bombs exploding. A close-up on one of the zeppelins reveals MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are flying the giant airship.)

MA: Wow! What a view!

LS (Looking at magazine with scantily clad women battling soldier zombies on the cover): I’ll say!

MA: Put that away! We have a movie to review! (Swipes magazine from LS).

LS: Hey! I was just getting to the best part!

MA (looks at opened centerfold LS had been eyeing): I’ll say! Anyway, let’s get to today’s movie. I’ll start since you’re flying this thing

LS: Me? I thought you were flying it.

MA: I’m not flying it!

LS: Errr..maybe it’s flying itself?

MA: I hope not. I seem to remember something from history called the Hindenburg. Try to figure out how to fly it. I’ll start the review.

LS: Sure. There must be a manual around here somewhere.

MA: Today we’re reviewing SUCKER PUNCH (2011) , the new fantasy action movie from writer/director Zack Snyder, the man who brought us the ambitious superhero movie WATCHMEN (2009).

LS: I liked WATCHMEN a lot. Snyder also directed 300 (2006) and the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004). I thought those two movies were just so-so. (While looking for manual he discovers another magazine, this one with gorgeous busty babes battling a dragon on the cover. He grins ear to ear.)

MA: SUCKER PUNCH is a feast for the eyes, full of wild visuals like the one we’re flying through right now, a World War I battle scene with fighter planes and zeppelins filling the sky, and hot babes and soldier zombies battling it out on the ground below. However, the story SUCKER PUNCH tells is average at best, and the movie isn’t strong enough to succeed on the strength of its visuals alone, and so the final product is a mixed bag.

LS: The story is average? Did we see the same movie? I wasn’t aware there was an actual storyline at all in this movie! I must have missed something.

MA (sees LS looking at magazine): I’m not surprised.

The film gets off to a great start in an opening montage that shows Baby Doll (Emily Browning) and her little sister grieving over the death of their mother, and their evil Stepfather (Gerard Plunkett) attacks them, and in the fight the little sister is killed, and the Stepfather brings the nearly mute Baby Doll (from shock, perhaps?) to an institution for mentally disturbed women. This sequence plays like a music video, with lots of music and no dialogue, but it worked for me. It was a neat little piece of storytelling, a cool way to open the film.

LS: Are you kidding? I agree, the opening plays like a music video. But that’s not a good thing. I found it incredibly annoying that there was no dialogue at all throughout his section, and characters do things like move in slow motion as they run. It was just awful! I wanted to know more about this back story. I wanted to know more about what was going on. But it’s superficial and stylized to the point of being soulless. What this did for me was turn me off to the movie right from the beginning. I didn’t care about any of these characters.

MA: Wow. You’re harsh. We’re talking about the first five minutes of the movie here, not the entire thing. I thought it worked.

At the institution, the Stepfather arranges for Baby Doll to have a lobotomy (nice guy!) which will happen in a few days once the doctor arrives. There’s then a jarring transition in which we learn that Baby Doll’s not really in an institution at all, but in a  whorehouse, where the girls perform dances and entertain the guests. Baby Doll learns this from two of the women she meets there, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) and Rocket (Jena Malone).

Now, I don’t want to give anything way, but I didn’t buy this transition one bit, and I knew from the get go where this film was going, and so the ending wasn’t much of a surprise for me.

LS: There were supposed to be surprises in this movie? That’s funny, because I sure didn’t see them. Just about every aspect of this movie was completely predictable. I saw the trailer for this movie like 20 times before the movie came out. I thought it looked pretty lame. Turns out almost everything you need to know about the movie is in the trailer. And it’s nice and short. I could have skipped the movie entirely and still written my part of this review.

MA: I’m guessing you didn’t like this one?

Anyway, the girls’ pimp is Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac), the man we saw as the orderly who arranged the lobotomy with the stepfather, and he’s a sufficiently slimy fellow, and there’s also Dr. Vera Gorski (Carla Gugino) who serves as the girls’ madame. The whole thing plays like a dream, and nuff said, I guess.

LS: Wow, that sounds exactly like another movie we saw recently, INCEPTION. Yeah, the lame music video beginning was supposed to be the “real world,” then we get treated to the whorehouse stuff which is a dream, and the battle sequences which are dreams within dreams. The whole time I just wanted to wake up and see another another movie!

I like Gugino, though. She deserves better than this.

Another odd thing is that the setting is a whorehouse, and yet we see no signs of anyone having sex. Ever. Instead, the girls just do dances for the clients that we never get to see, either. The entire setting is a cheat. Of course the PG-13 rating doesn’t help matters. But why set a story in a whorehouse, if you’re going to keep it so sanitized?

MA: The gimmick in this one has Baby Doll, whenever she’s about to dance, close her eyes and at these times she finds herself in a fantasy world where she meets the Wise Man (Scott Glenn). He tells her that in order for her to escape, she must find five things—a map, fire, a knife, a key, and the fifth thing is a mystery . She’ll have to figure that out for herself later. Well, thanks dude! That was helpful!

Baby Doll then gets to fight three giant monster samurais, in what I thought was one of the movie’s best sequences.

LS: This is the one point where I thought the movie was going to deliver the goods. Carla Gugino as the Dance Instructor/Madame plays an old-fashioned reel-to-reel tape player. Music begins. It’s Bjork’s amazing song “Army of Me,” which if you’re familiar with it, is a powerful song that sets a real mood. Then Baby Doll is transported to a Buddhist temple, where she goes up against three giant monsters dressed as samurais. All of this was pretty cool. I was totally getting into it. Unfortunately, this is the only scene that really captured my imagination. The movie didn’t really start for me until this scene. Unfortunately, when the scene’s over, so is the best part of the movie. They should have just released this one scene and deleted the rest of the movie.

MA: SUCKER PUNCH is similar in structure to SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010), as both movies play out like a video game. In that one, Scott Pilgrim has to battle “seven evil exes” and here Baby Doll has to gain five items. The difference is SCOTT PILGRIM was a comedy and the screwball antics were easier to accept, because the film was loony. Here, it’s supposed to be a serious action movie, but with so much of the story based on complete dream-like fantasy, it’s hard to take seriously, and it doesn’t work as well.

LS: The difference is SCOTT PILGRIM had an actual story to it. It had developed characters. It used the video game aspects in an innovative way. I thought it was cleverly done. As for SUCKER PUNCH, it has no story, one-dimensional characters, and everything that happens is pretty predictable. They put a lot of money into SUCKER PUNCH’s visuals, and there are parts that look great, but they FORGOT TO BUY A DAMN SCRIPT!

MA: So, Baby Doll tells her friends about her plan to escape, and they agree to help her so they can all escape, and what happens is each time they go for an item in “real life” Baby Doll closes her eyes and they all enter the fantasy world of the Wise Man where he tells them how to get the item their looking for.

For example, the map they’re looking for is in Blue’s office, but in the fantasy world, they have to battle World War I soldier zombies to steal the map. When it comes time for the fire, they have to steal a cigarette lighter, but in the fantasy world, they must battle a dragon.

LS: Actually, whenever Baby Doll closes her eyes and goes into the battle sequences, she is supposed to be doing a provocative dance in the “whorehouse” reality that hypnotizes everyone who sees it. We never see her actually dance. I would have liked to see that at least once. Everyone goes on and on about how great a dancer she is – but we never see proof of this.

MA: That’s a good point. I figured we’d see her dance at least once, but nope!

So that’s how the movie goes, as the girls battle their way through these different set pieces to get the items they need to escape, and whether or not they ultimately make it of course is what the ending is all about.

Again, visually I loved SUCKER PUNCH, but its story needed a lot of work. I didn’t buy the “whorehouse” bit at all. It was so obviously dreamlike that you just knew where this film was going in terms of its revelations at the end.

LS: Another giveaway is that in the “real world” things are drab looking (but just as stylized), but in the whorehouse world, all of the girls are perfectly made-up and look like supermodels. Not once does a character smear her mascara or smudge her lipstick. In the battlefield, they’re even more stylized. Sure, they look great, but they also could have easily been replaced by CGI characters.

MA: And as much as I liked this film visually, I thought the battle sequences fell flat. I liked the first battle a lot, between Baby Doll and the three giant monster warriors. It was a really cool scene. But later, when the movie should have taken off, in the big World War I battle sequence, I was unimpressed. While this grand scope of battlefield images with the planes and zeppelins is certainly satisfying, I thought that the actual battle scenes between the babes and the zombies were mediocre and flat.

(A ZOMBIE SOLDIER pops up from behind some machinery)

ZOMBIE: Brains! Brains! I wish someone with brains had written this movie!

LS: When we see the giant samurai creatures, it’s all new to us. And it looks great. By the time we get to the other battles with other kinds of creatures, it’s old hat. And the battle scenes are repetitive and monotonous. When even the action gets boring, you know there’s a problem.

MA: Yes, the same can be said about the dragon sequence. While the dragon itself was very menacing and cool-looking, the actual battle was hardly exciting. So, director Zach Snyder gets a gold star for creating amazing and memorable images in this movie, but in terms of generating suspense he doesn’t do so well.

The one scene that I thought was really suspenseful was towards the end, when Blue Jones discovers that the girls are trying to escape and deals with them accordingly. This was a suspenseful, violent and dark scene, one that succeeded in making me feel that what was going on was real, but there weren’t many of these true scenes in the movie at all. As a total package, I liked WATCHMEN much better than SUCKER PUNCH.

LS: There’s no comparison. WATCHMEN was based on a legendary graphic novel and had a solid, well-developed story, and fleshed out characters. You cannot compare it to cinema bubblegum like SUCKER PUNCH.

MA: The story was just average. I liked the idea of Baby Doll entering the fantasy world, and I liked how it gave the film the excuse to do all these neat battle scenes, but the scenes weren’t as good as they could have been. The bigger problem with the story is that the reality Baby Doll is escaping from, the whorehouse, isn’t real. Had this part of the story remained rooted in reality, I would have bought into it much more. It was like a dream within a dream within a dream, and I’ve made it no secret that I don’t like dream plots.

(LEONARDO DICAPRIO runs through the room)

DICAPRIO: It’s a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream….(he disappears)

MA: The acting in this one was pretty much nonexistent. Like you said, these characters could have been all CGI created. They don’t really get a chance to do any real acting. Emily Browning is OK as Baby Doll, but she never wowed me. Abbie Cornish was OK as Sweet Pea. Cornish is also starring in LIMITLESS (2011) and I liked her better in that movie. I did like Jena Malone as Rocket, as she seemed to have more personality than the others.

LS: I think Jena Malone as Rocket was my favorite, too. She and Sweet Pea are the main characters after Baby Doll. Poor Amber (Jamie Chung) is given hardly anything to do. In the battle scenes she’s always flying a plane or stuck inside a robot. Disney Channel alum Vanessa Hudgens is also in it, as a brunette character named Blondie (how funny), and she’s the weakest of the girl characters. With her big hair and baby face, she looked like a little kid playing dress-up and didn’t really belong there. I wish they’d used someone better.

The girls in this movie, for the most part, are hot and are made up to be even hotter. Like I said, they look like a group of supermodels most of the time. They’re part of the reason the visuals work so well. But there’s no real depth to them. They’re predictable, stock characters.

Y’know, teenage girls running around like superheroes isn’t anything new. Japanese anime has been doing this for decades. And doing it with better stories.

MA: Oscar Isaac makes for a competent villain as Blue Jones, but through most of the movie he doesn’t do all that much. He doesn’t get to shine as a true bad guy until the end. Scott Glenn as the Wise Man could have played this dull role in his sleep, and at times it looks as if he just woke up, but it was still good to see him.

LS: I thought Oscar Isaac was actually pretty annoying as Blue. He never seemed menacing enough. He seemed like an underling who thinks he’s in charge. An irritating weasel. I kept expecting one of the girls to kill him off without much effort.

Scott Glenn is okay, but once again it’s a role that takes no effort. And he does look like he’s doing it in his sleep!

And don’t forget about Jon Hamm (Don Draper from the excellent AMC  TV series, MAD MEN). Here’s a great actor reduced to playing what are essentially cameo roles as someone called the “High Roller” in the whorehouse sequences (we see him in the audience once, but he has no dialogue and we don’t even really meet him) as well as the “Doctor” in the real world who performs lobotomies (and who has just a few lines of dialogue). What a complete waste of his talent!

MA: Gerard Plunkett as the Stepfather has minimal screen time and hardly any dialogue, but he sure makes a good evil bastard. I think he gave the best performance in the film, and he’s hardly in it at all.

LS: I wanted to know more about him, and about Baby Doll before she was brought to the asylum. I hated the opening montage/music video thing. I wanted some real character development, some real insight into what was going on, instead of the same old “by the numbers” version. We’ve seen all this before, so much so that Zack Snyder didn’t even have to use any effort in that part. And it could have been so much more effective. It’s like he didn’t want to bother with the effort developing things. He was too busy thinking up elaborate monsters for the battle sequences.

MA: SUCKER PUNCH is a mixed bag. Is it worth it seeing it on the big screen? Well, for its neat visuals, I’d have to say yes, it is worth seeing at the movies, but be forewarned, as a complete package it doesn’t hold up. It’s in desperate need of a much better story.

LS: Or any story at all.

MA: I give it two and a half knives.

LS: Man, are you generous.

MA: Well, I enjoyed the visuals a lot.

LS: Okay, here’s what’s good about the movie. The girls are hot. The battle scenes are visually interesting (well, mostly the first one with the samurais, but each of the battle sequences has something that stands out. I also liked the use of music. The use of that Bjork song as a centerpiece was inspired – it’s a good song and it fits its sequence perfectly – like a good music video….er…maybe that’s the problem. SUCKER PUNCH plays more like a big-budget string of music videos than a movie.

Overall, the choice of music is pretty good. We’ve got Eurythmics’ “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)” performed by star Emily Browning (which wasn’t completely awful; she also sings a cover of The Smiths’ “Asleep”), The Stooges’ classic “Search and Destroy” covered by Skunk Anansie, Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit” covered by Emiliana Torrini, and even Carla Gugino and Oscar Isaac get into the act with a cover of Roxy Music’s “Love is the Drug” during the closing credits. Some of the covers work, others don’t, but they’re all interesting choices. And thankfully they didn’t have someone sing a cover of the Bjork song – it’s the real deal. Hell, the soundtrack is more inspired than the movie is.

MA: I agree. I loved the soundtrack.

LS: But the thing is, SUCKER PUNCH is more like a series of music videos, and sequences from video games, than an actual coherent movie. And by the end, it just feels so predictable and pointless, you wonder why they ever bothered.

I give it one knife. I wanted to give it even less, because it was such a waste of time. But the visuals are well done, and look good on the big screen. I can’t imagine it would look as good on a television screen. But seriously, it’s not worth the price of a theater ticket to see it. Once you dig beneath the look of the movie, it has no substance. It’s a void. Even the things that are good about it aren’t strong enough to overshadow what’s bad about it. SUCKER PUNCH? It’s more like a love tap.

MA: Well, it sounds like we agree the visuals were superb, and while you found the story nonexistent, I found it average. All right, that about wraps things up. Have you found those zeppelin instructions yet?

LS: Yep. I have them right here.

MA: What does it say?

LS (reads): “To drive this zeppelin, you need to find five items—a map, a key—.”

MA (groans): No way!

LS: Screw this. I’m jumping!

MA: Hold on. I’m coming too. (The two of them strap on parachutes as missiles explode in the sky around their airship). All right everybody, we’ll see you next week with another review of another new movie!

(They jump from zeppelin as the dirigible explodes in a gigantic fireball. They parachute to the ground, landing safely in the arms of beautiful, busty babes.)

LS: I love this job!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives SUCKER PUNCH – two and a half knives

L.L. Soares gives SUCKER PUNCH – one knife!

3 Comments »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers