Category Archives: Film

Ninja Assassin

Leave a reply

Here are the things I learned while watching Ninja Assassin[1]:

1) Human bodies are basically overpressurized bags of blood that will explode at the slightest provocation.
2) Europe has a severe ninja infestation.
3) Ninjas are like cockroaches: for every one you see, there are at least a dozen you don’t.
4) Ninjas are like cockroaches: they really hate it when you shine lights on them.
5) Ninjas will kill anyone, as long as you pay them with one hundred pounds of gold.
6) Ninja stars[3] are every bit as cool as you thought they were when you were eight.

[1] There really was way too much plot getting in the way of my chopsocky, at least for the first third of the movie. But, okay, a ninja with a troubled past[2] and a precocious (let’s say) Interpol analyst team up against ninja hit squads and the police, on a quest for bloody revenge.
[2] I mean, more troubled than that; like, take ninja as the troubled baseline, and then adjust from there.
[3] No, not shuriken. These were definitely ninja stars.

2012

4 Replies

So, the Mayans, right? I’ve been keeping an eye on this calendar thing since way before it got trendy. That said, I’m glad it got trendy, because how else am I supposed to get a gem of a movie like 2012, in which the world is destroyed non-stop for two and a half hours? In case you have managed to miss the media blitz, it goes like this. The Mayans had this calendar that predicted star movements, eclipses, pretty much everything going on with the earth’s interactions with the rest of the solar system and possibly galaxy. And this calendar has been around for thousands of years, constantly being right. But, as of the winter solstice, 2012, the calendar just ends. I guess the present day Maya people, of whom there are not many, say it’s this thing like the end of an age, and a new age will start afterward? But it was quickly appropriated[1] as the predictive date of the end of the world. After all, if the world doesn’t end, where did all of our eclipses and tides go, Mayans? Either keep predicting, or give us our orgiastic apocalypse fantasies![2]

I should ought to point out that the world does not immediately begin ending once the credits have concluded; in fact, the film opens in 2009, because someone decided we needed a scientific reason for the inevitable carnage. Please note that we were not provided with a scientific reason, at all, but, you know how these things go. All the same, Roland Emmerich clearly understood that his audience would not be pleased by the lack of instant carnage, because the evidence montage was suffused with rapid tension music from the orchestra pit. Then, after a brief pause to introduce John Cusack, the rest of the film actually was the non-stop destructive roller coaster I had jokingly promised my double-dates for the evening. I’m not even kidding; if there was a scene after the 30 minute mark that did not include either an explosion, a tidal wave, an earthquake, flowing lava or (at the bare minimum) floating ash, I genuinely don’t remember it. And every time the film thought about being emotionally serious or speaking intelligently on the loss of worldwide culture or the death of an entire sentient species, Roland’s steady hand was there on the script to pull back from that brink and resume the carnival-of-the-ridiculous the film was clearly meant to be.

The only problem I had, the only problem, was with the audience. Because except for me and my dates, there was nobody laughing every two to five minutes at the newest bit of over-the-top parody of disaster film that I’m positive Emmerich intended to make. I’m pretty sure nobody else laughed the entire time! The director clearly got it. The sprawling cast of Hollywood notables appeared to get it. I certainly got it. Why didn’t they?

[1] Probably by The Man.
[2] Actual orgies, while likely, are not necessarily included. This was meant to be more in the metaphorical doomsday-excitement sense.

The Stepfather (2009)

Leave a reply

Except, I actually went to see two movies yesterday, not just one. Which sort of catches me up on current horror, except that I think I missed one on a spaceship. I guess I should investigate that? Anyway, said second movie was The Stepfather, a remake of a late ’80s franchise in which this one guy moves from single mother to single mother in search of the perfect family. Since people aren’t, as a rule, perfect[1], he trends toward disappointment. Which is fine as far as it goes, except for his habit of killing everyone in a fit of rage before he moves on to the next family.

The flick was by turns tense, suddenly violent, and occasionally quite funny, but it did raise a few question in my mind. How did I watch two horror movies in a row with no nudity in evidence? (Well, one of them was PG-13, but still: lame!) Is it really warm enough in a Portland summer to justify constant bikinis? (I am willing to suspend my disbelief in service of even mildly occluded plot points.) How come murderous psychopaths have a really easy time picking up women in supermarkets, while I… (Yeah, I got nothing on this one. Obviously.)

[1] This is especially true when gathered in groups of more than one.

Saw VI

1 Reply

There are, aside from the first spare and intelligent entry in the series, only two reasons to watch a Saw movie. Either, you want to see what new Rube Goreberg[1] devices and tests that Jigsaw and his apprentices have devised for their latest victims, or you want to learn a little bit more about the story behind said murderous fiends. Because, the series is really excellent about doling out new information about an increasingly intricate backstory without retconning anything that has gone before, despite the overall tale spending far more time in the past than the future. And it’s really excellent at killing people in new and implausible ways.

So, pleasingly, Saw VI hit both of these marks, and to some extent, that’s all you need to know. But it also went zany. I don’t think I minded much, but it was really strange watching the franchise get all political. Because this time, the targets were not random people who needed to learn lessons about living, but health insurance executives (and associated hangers on) who needed to learn those lessons. The message was ham-fisted, albeit timely. But I think that was kind of the point, the ham-fistedness. To just really stick it to those jerks, if you will, in full-on audience service.[2] Plus, the ongoing plotline stuff was wrapped up a little bit more thoroughly than usual. So, strange movie all around. That said, I’m pretty sure there will be a Saw VII next October. ‘Cause, y’know.

[1] Yeah, still proud of that one.
[2] Not quite the same as fan service.

The House of the Devil

1 Reply

I would ask why all my favorite movie stories happen at the Alamo Drafthouse, but I know why: because it’s the kind of place that builds good industry relationships, and so it gets all the cool stuff that is mostly reserved for the red carpet premiere set. I am jealous of this lack in Dallas, but I do get to go to Austin now and again and relive the awesome all over again. In this particular case, I watched a movie called The House of the Devil, which is presently only in release in New York, Los Angeles, and one screen in Austin. Not that this was carpety or star-studded, or that it even particularly had stars[1], but I still appreciate on some level the exclusivity.

What we’ve got here is your basic 80s Satanic cult flick, in which a girl takes a babysitting job on the night of a lunar eclipse, only the situation keeps getting weirder and spookier and tenser. Generally good stuff, and it was definitely made as solid homage to the genre, with every detail spot on down to the film stock quality. And it was good. It just… I feel like I watched a movie someone made in the early 1980s. As that was the apparent goal, I must admit that they nailed it; they did[2]. But somehow, I feel like the 25 years that have elapsed since then requires some kind of advancement in the state of the art. Not the film, or the special effects (of which there were almost none beyond the ones based on violence), but the plot. Like, maybe a modern twist, some hint that this was not in fact an old reel someone dug up, but an actual new movie? I liked it, don’t get me wrong. The slavish devotion to nostalgia just made it feel empty.

[1] The biggest name was a pre-credits cameo by Dee Wallace.
[2] Seriously, the only detail that felt wrong during the opening credits was that the release date Roman numerals started with MM instead of MCM.

The Invention of Lying

Leave a reply

I know that October isn’t really the right time of year to watch comedies. I mean, it’s really a pretty straightforward process. October and February are for horror, November is for family movies and James Bond, December is for OMG-Drama, spring (and September? I’m not entirely sure where September fits) are for comedy, summer is for action blockbusters, and January is for movies that honestly shouldn’t ought to have been released. But, okay, Hollywood doesn’t always do the right thing, and also sometimes I am in the company of people who have an aversion to this or that type of movie. In this instance, despite there being a couple-few horror movies left for me to catch up on for the month, I ended up seeing The Invention of Lying.

Imagine, if you can, a world in which humans never learned how to lie. I mean, not about anything. They don’t even have that polite society filter that keeps them from saying whatever crosses their minds. And Ricky Gervais is one of this world’s losers, near the bottom of the genetic lottery, and almost out of job prospects despite talent, because of nothing more than unfortunate luck. And in this moment of disaster, a neuron fires in a way that has never happened before, and he, y’know, invents lying. Next thing you know, he has achieved fiction and religion, not to mention a ton of cash, yet despite all his efforts, he cannot win what he wants most of all: the love of Jennifer Garner. The rest, well, romantic comedy, I guess? Will he learn a valuable lesson, will it come too late, etc.

And you know, it was funny, and it was sweet, just as you’d expect. It was even funny for a regular funny movie, so quite a bit moreso than the usual romantic comedy. (It may have been sweeter than usual too, but as I had been rendered tipsy earlier in the evening, I do not fully trust my opinion on that matter.) The one thing I didn’t like was the religious angle, because it seemed, well, a little cruel. I mean, in the movie it wasn’t at all, but there was still this underlying snicker, like even though Ricky Gervais isn’t a jerk, probably whoever invented religion the first time was. And I figure that as many good religious people as there are, it didn’t have to be that way at the start. My headspace on this point may be all jumbled, I admit. It’s not like I disagree with the underlying point at all, I just don’t think it needed to be mean. So, there’s that?

Zombieland

2 Replies

So, okay, Woody Harrelson versus the zombiepocalypse. There’s no chance I was not going to love this movie. Calibrate accordingly.

Well, nah, honestly I’ll be able to calibrate Zombieland pretty well my own self. Because it mostly was not one of the classic Romero zombie movie types where the zombies are a setting in which to cleverly satirize the American condition, I won’t be endlessly and high-falootin’ly describing the literary-cinematic influences and depth of the work, like I might be inclined to do in different circumstances. No, it was a pretty straightforward road trip movie, wherein our cast of characters must learn to trust each other and grow into a tight knit community by the end. Just like every road trip movie, is what I’m saying. Except for the part where road movies don’t usually have zombies, a hilarious running schtick about the rules to survive in Zombieland, or did I mention really a lot of zombies being fought by Woody Harrelson?

Seriously, what part of that premise isn’t pure gold?

Law Abiding Citizen

Law Abiding Citizen is, in addition to being a frequently good movie, kind of a comparative sociology experiment. So there’s this guy, and his family gets killed in a home invasion. Then later, DA Jamie Foxx cuts a deal with one of[1] the two invaders because he doesn’t think the case is strong enough to get both of them. Later still, the guy whose family got killed puts together the best revenge package imaginable.

Anyway, sociology, right? This is true in a few ways. Firstly, it marks a clear divide from what I’m going to call a generation ago, in the ’70s. Back in those days, when Charles Bronson’s wife and daughter were raped and/or murdered, he would never have even let the law get involved in the first place, and the audience would have been with him the whole time, no matter what he did. Of course, Chuck would never have gone after innocent people, so that’s an important possible distinction. Also, though, I learned something important about audience dynamics. It seemed to me that the moment when people finally turned against the guy, saying his revenge had gone too far, was when he killed the cute blonde chick. I know that the media has already demonstrated this sociological tidbit, but seeing it in live action and furthermore knowing the writers had planned to evoke the audience turn? Little bit weird to realize it this fully.

By and large, it’s a decent flick. Marred by some unfortunate (and worse, wholly out of place) sexism, but if you leave that scene out of it, you’ve got a pretty great combination revenge flick and tension thriller. If I knew how I’d feel about it without having actually experienced the plot, I’d watch it again.

[1] The worse one, though in fairness he probably could not pick who would make the deal?

Paranormal Activity

On Thursday, I had never heard of Paranormal Activity as a movie, even though it has apparently been out since 2007. On Saturday, I watched it, knowing nothing more than what I’m about to say here: spooky stuff is happening in a house, the residents set up cameras, and then bad stuff happens. Delving only slightly more, the girl has been haunted by something spooky for her whole life, and this is the latest iteration thereof.

I can’t exactly say it scared me, although there are circumstances under which it could have. For one thing, the audience would have needed to not be present. On the bright side, I traded potential fear for guaranteed amusement. There really is something awesome about listening to ripples of shock and fear spreading through 500 people at your back that brightens your day! Another fear-conducive circumstance would have required me to live in an alternate universe where The Blair Witch Project had never been made. And in some ways I would prefer that alternate universe, because this would have been far scarier than Blair Witch was when I saw that movie under the precise circumstance I describe. All that said, the movie really was pretty affecting, with slowly building tension that transformed into dread and quite a few “oh shit” moments.

I guess the best thing I can say for it is that, unlike the majority of movies I see these days, I forgot to mentally write my review as I was watching, because I really did want to see what unexplained and maybe-scary thing would happen next.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs

1 Reply

Rainy days plus dollar movies equals a pretty decent salvage of a date day, if you ask me. Although I guess I never saw the middle one, the original Ice Age was pretty good, so I was perfectly happy to accept the idea of checking out Ice Age 3 when it was presented to me. Dollar movies, for now, means no 3D, so I dunno about that part. But the movie itself was mixed. As a kid movie, it was perfectly fine, sometimes way to kiddy for me like you’d expect, other times with surprisingly naughty dialogue that had me laughing in shock as much as humor. But, y’know, adventure, heart-warmingness, dinosaurs, all the stuff you expect in a kid movie, even if it is served a bit lukewarm to not burn all those metaphorical kid tongues. I mean, it had Denis Leary, and even lukewarm Denis Leary will entertain me pretty well. I may even be a fan.

As an adult movie… I mean, you know it won’t work, right? So when they try, is that a good thing because they want to overcome their limitations, or is it a bad thing because they give you whatever brief moment of unfortunate hopefulness? I honestly can’t decide, either in this case or as a general purpose question for the genre. In this case, the adult theme they inserted was the way that friendships are able to suffer when some friends are married and starting families while other friends are still free-wheeling singles.[1] And I was a little bit interested in seeing where they went with the line of thought, especially since Denis Leary was the main representative of the free-wheeling class, and I thought it might spice up his otherwise kid-friendly performance at least a little. Instead of that actually happening, the sloth character was put into danger via an underground lost dinosaur world, and everyone ended up on a quest to save him, at the end of which they all just decided to stick together and be a big family unit instead of actually resolving any of the underlying fractures that initially raised the question. Which is fine in a kid movie, but I thought, if only for a few moments, that it might be more.

Oh, well. On the bright side, there was a canyon chase on pterodactyls, and a lot of lava. That shit is awesome even in 2D, no matter what else might be going on around it disguised as plot. So there’s that. That, and velociraptors.

[1] It occurs to me, belatedly, that not many free-wheeling singles are going to show up in the seat for this one, so the message might have been skewed more than a bit from the start. But okay.