Tag Archives: action

Men in Black 3

It needs to be said, right up front, that MIB^3 was an entirely unnecessary movie. Even if there was no other reason, it is troubling that this is the movie that tells the world a) that Tommy Lee Jones deems himself ready to retire or b) that the studio figures he cannot cut the mustard fighting aliens and/or quipping deadpan against Will Smith. Let’s be honest, both of these are crimes against humanity. Plus, blah blah blah Hollywood sequelitis, nobody can write well about time travel, et cetera.

But the thing is, a movie doesn’t have to be necessary to be fun, and probably I will not ever get tired of watching the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air tackling his way through alien goo, incomprehensible technology, and Tommy Lee Jones’ deadpan to save the world yet again from the latest space-borne menace. Mind you, I will probably have the good grace to feel bad about it before I walk into the theater, and in direct proportion to the amount of missing Tommy Lee Jones. But I’ll still like it. We’ll all still like it. I mean, come on.

Safe (2012)

Leave a reply

I actually saw another movie the same day I saw The Avengers (the first time), which is why I remember it even less. You know, not as good, plus just as long ago without a refresher. It’s not that Safe was bad, by any means. The truth is that Jason Statham has made an exceptionally good movie, full of non-stop action, with a likeably dark hero, a strong but nevertheless screwed person in danger, and scads of bad guys out to get them both. And he’s made this movie close to a dozen times now!

In this particular case, the likeably dark hero is an alcoholic, down-trodden MMA fighter and the strong doomed person is a little girl with a photographic memory, and the scads of bad guys are Triads and the Russian Mafia and crooked cops all after a big payday that can be scrounged from what she’s seen lately. And then comes about 70 minutes of punching, kicking, shooting, and chasing. Enjoy!, if it’s the kind of thing you’re into.

(You may be wondering if this would have been a longer, more thorough review if it had happened right after I watched. Answer: doubtful.)

The Avengers (2012)

It’s been I suppose weeks since I actually saw The Avengers, which is as personally frustrating as it is lame. But the larger problem (even though I’ve seen it twice) is that it makes it hard to remember any specific discussion I may have wanted to engage. So, obviously it was good. You already know that because I saw it twice. (Savvy viewers may also have known it because of what a good job has been done with the various properties leading up to this moment, or because they’ve watched Joss Whedon’s writing/direction in other formats.)

But let’s say you’ve done none of those things, and now you’re wondering if you want to go see a movie in which the Norse god of mischief acts as a catspaw for an invading alien army bent on conquering the earth and also stealing a head-sized white cube filled with limitless cosmic power, and then a bunch of Marvel superheroes attempt to quip aside their differences and prevent this clearly bad outcome? The answer is yes, and here’s the reason why: even though it may not be the best plot you’ve ever seen, it is very probably the most comic-booky plot you’ve ever seen, and not only is the dialogue consistently great, but practically every moment (and 100% of the moments in the third act) were among the most fun I’ve had at the movies.

Put another way: would definitely watch a third time.

John Carter

Leave a reply

I have been… well, I have been just incredibly busy lately. I mean, like wow. Significant overtime every week since I started my new job, significant percentage of time spent working (instead of “other”) even during the normal 40 hours, no time to finish a single book, nor to even play at a single video game, nor to watch a single movie. Well, sadly that’s untrue, I had time to watch one movie. But I had time to watch it weeks ago and did not have time to review it, which is the actually sad part of that story.

Because, yeah, watching John Carter? There was nothing sad about that at all! Except for how little I remember, of course. There’s this rich Civil War vet who has recently died, and he provides the stories of his adventures to his nephew and heir, none of which would be all that meaningful in the scheme of things except for how the journal in the bequeathment tells of an unexpected journey to a distant land full of flying airships, tall, green insectoid warriors, a particularly awesome canine companion, and of course a princess[1] in search of a savior for her people. It’s all very mythic and heroic, and I think it could have been the next big storytelling event, except that apparently it was just horrifically marketed to anyone who didn’t have fond memories of the century-old books on which it is based.

This is for me a huge disappointment, because I don’t care if everyone in Hollywood has already cannibalized the set pieces and the themes and if the purported audience did not understand what the point of the preview was. Because this is a damn fine story, no matter how stolen and how miscomprehended today, and if people would just walk into the theater and watch it, they’d be all “yay, that was good, make more of them for me now please!” And I know this will not happen, and that even if my review had not been too late, it still would have been far too little. Nevertheless, I will continue to wish[2] and to be willing to go see it again if anyone has interest and a more-flexible-than-mine schedule.

Maybe I’ll grab the books on Kindle if I can find a sufficient overlap of “cheap” and “moderately edited” in the reviews, and then be horrified by just how sexist they are in print! If I do, you will be the second or so to know. I promise.

[1] Spoiler alert: …of Mars!
[2] I mean, still bring back Firefly first, if we’re talking about screen wishes in my arsenal. Obviously. But still.

Underworld: Awakening

Leave a reply

I had to rewatch Underworld first, plus also read a Wikipedian summary of Underworld: Evolution, because it turns out that my review of that movie didn’t tell me a damn thing about what happened in it. Which I think is more good than bad, but in the moment it was decidedly inconvenient. And then I still didn’t have to watch the third movie, since the other two already explain in flashback everything that happens in it. Between a wholly retreaded plot and no trace of Kate Beckinsale in skintight leather, I really can’t figure out what someone was thinking when they made it. But the upshot of all this is that I was able to go into Underworld: Awakening without being confused at all. Mind you, probably none of it was necessary, since they had a brief synopsis at the beginning of the movie, as if to acknowledge that not everyone has the films readily available and it’s been like six years since one that mattered.

I guess what made me think I needed to watch them in advance was previews that talked about Kate’s vampiric Selene having been imprisoned for twelve years, and I couldn’t really remember anything like that. Well, it turns out that it’s because there was no such imprisonment; instead, the movie starts off with Selene and Michael Corvin on the run in the aftermath of humanity discovering the existence of vampires and werewolves and reacting, well, predictably. And then she gets captured, and then twelve years pass, all in the prologue of this movie. So, oops. Still, Underworld is not a terrible movie, so it’s not like I am filled with regret. Anyway, she eventually gets free, as implied by the time limit on the imprisonment, finds her leathers and then starts looking for Michael again. I suppose Scott Speedman is holding out for the next sequel, because there were lots of sidetrackings that happened, including some kind of big conspiracy! Which is about all there is to say about that without spoilers, but I’d just like to add that this, as with the first and probably the second movie, was not terrible. And also, I really kind of dig ruthless Selene. (Not that she was chock full of ruth before, but I’m confident there was some there, as how else to explain the contrasting dearth today? (Well, okay, yesterday is when I saw the movie, and the series is set in purposefully non-specific modern day, anywhen from 1990 to 2020.))

The Adventures of Tintin

Leave a reply

You know that guy Tintin? Because The Adventures of Tintin definitely assumes you do. Anyway, I gathered that he’s a reporter who has accidental adventures, I guess? I also gathered that he’s significantly smarter than everyone around him, except for his dog, who is as much smarter than him as he is than the other people. This is irritating only because he should be smart enough to notice how smart the dog is. But I digress.

So this guy Tintin goes on the slowest adventure ever, accompanied by his dog, a few model ships, the descendant of a sea captain, the Perils of Alcoholism, oh, and some bad guys, because they want the treasure (probably) too. Perhaps objectively, or perhaps because I had been given miscalibrated expectations, the movie was just way way way too slow for me to maintain interest. That said, there’s a five or ten minute sequence in Casablanca[1] that was worth the price of admission, if perhaps not sitting through the rest of the film.

Or, maybe if I knew and therefore cared more about Tintin, the rest would have worked out? But mainly I just wanted the dog to take over. And, while I’m here, the animation was pretty dang okay. More realistic than not, but no uncanny valley moments. So that, at least, was entirely awesome.

[1] Well, I think so? Probably Morocco anyway. I forget.

Haywire

Leave a reply

When the credits rolled on Haywire, I immediately felt kind of dumb for not having already realized it was a Steven Soderbergh movie. It just filled that obvious space in my head, the moment I knew. Not that he writes a lot of action, but when he does, it is exactly this kind of kinetic, stylized to the point of nearly being its own character, loudly impactful action. And certainly the characters are all Soderberghian ciphers, begrudgingly giving up any hint of motivation that you do not fill in for yourself. And the plot is I think Soderberghian too, in that it is easily summarized in one line that doesn’t exactly belie hidden depths, even though they exist. Upon reflection, I’m not sure why I like his movies. On paper, it seems like I would hate every one of them, but somehow they’re always engrossing. I should try to figure that out sometime.

Oh, as for the one line plot, there’s this awesome spy chick who gets burned (a la Burn Notice the TV show, obviously, but with a completely different mentality) and then goes on a hunt through every person involved in her last mission, including her superiors, to find out why and take her revenge. …okay, technically that was more than one line, but I bet if I were the kind of person who was actively interested in terse editing, I could have trimmed it down.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

The bad thing about the new Mission: Impossible flick is that the plot felt occasionally rushed. I’m not talking about one of those things where reviewers say, despite being paid actual money by actual media organizations to have no other job besides sitting in a dark room with popcorn watching magical images appear in front of them and then talking about those images, that they were confused because the plot of the movie was too hard to follow.[1] There was definitely no point where I said, “Wait, what, they left something out!” I’m just saying that, now and again, you could tell that there was room for more backstory and it had been squeezed out. (I am thinking here specifically of Bogdan, who was really given nothing to do except have a goofy smile and be a plot catalyst; but that is not the only example of what I mean.)

The good thing about Ghost Protocol is you don’t have to care about any thin areas in the Pattern, because everything else was in fact really pretty cool. Was the mission actually impossible? Pretty much! Was the gadgetry really cool? Yes, yes it was, and on top of that it was involved in an unacknowledged-by-the-dialogue running joke that I will not spoil because it has plot implications. Did Tom Cruise smirk his way through the whole movie? I mean, obviously he did since that’s what he has done in every movie he’s ever been in[2], but it’s not like his smirk is off-putting, and it conveys a whole range of emotion beyond general punchability. Which when you think about it makes him an incredible actor. And the rest of the cast had generally good chemistry, and character development beyond ‘helps Tom Cruise do the Impossible’. So I’m saying, there’s very little not to like here. But none of these are the reason I’d recommend the movie.

Go see it in IMAX, because just about every action scene is put together in a way to showcase the immensity of that screen, and frankly very few IMAX films that come out have that particular sensibility. It was close to as good as a nature documentary, in those terms. And it had rather more explosions per capita than a nature documentary generally does, so you can see how this would be a win-win. IMAX or not, though, I wish more action movies were put together on this scale. Big is not a necessary thing by any means, and look no further than Die Hard before you consider disagreeing. But it should happen more than it does, is all I’m saying. Most of these kinds of movies are not designed to be small, but they’re filmed that way anyhow.

Okay, digression over. Review, too.

[1] Not that I’m bitter.
[2] Maybe not Eyes Wide Shut. Maybe.

Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception

3 Replies

I like that the Uncharted games are end-of-year releases. My parents enjoy the seamless cinematic feel, I like having something to do out at the Ranch at Christmastime that is commercial-free; pretty much everyone wins. (Well, sometimes it’s a little too seamless, and I end up with my dad giving me good but unimplementable advice during a cutscene. Still, as complaints go, this is a pretty minor one.)

Drake’s Deception is, for the most part, exactly the same game as the other two, though I understand there may be co-op campaign play that I did not see any part of, and which I suppose could plausibly change things? Probably it just turns a previously unkillable NPC into a new excuse to restart from last autosave, though. Anyway, my point is, there’s not much to say that I haven’t already said about one of the previous games. If you like a mix of platforming[1], shooting with the occasional pinch of stealth or dash of fisticuffs, and all kinds of Indiana Jones style treasure-hunting and clue-divining that also has a subdued romance plot, over-the-top action sequences, and a pretty hilarious ongoing exploration of the mentor relationship, this is an oddly precise match for what you seek!

I wonder if, novelty of the first game aside, any of them are better than the others? I’m pleased, I think, to note that while they all flow from one to the next with continuity and such, there’s nothing like a trilogy feel here. I guess they could keep making them forever, though I should say that getting much deeper into Nathan Drake’s life without some kind of real change (a marriage, a break-up, a death, something to shake up the status quo) will start to feel cheap pretty soon. Maybe even by during this game, but certainly by the next one. So past writers of half of the current game or at the very least future writers of the next one? This was your warning!

Oh, and I should warn you about the [spoiler elided, or else presented in Sabean script if you prefer], but nobody warned me, so, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

[1] That, okay, is not as good by a long shot as what you get in the Assassin’s Creed series, but what is?

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Things the Sherlock Holmes sequel did right, in no particular order:

Less action-for-the-sake-of-action feeling to it than the original. Sequences that showed the inner workings of Holmes’ mind; not so much how he is eight steps ahead of anyone else, but at least the demonstrable fact that he is. (Though maybe the first one did too? I can’t recall.) Sufficient use of Doyle’s canon that I was able to anticipate certain events and recognize others. Robert Downey Jr. Stephen Fry. Still excellent Holmes/Watson chemistry.

Things the movie did wrong, in no particular order:

Y’know, I got nothing. It was light and fun and better than its progenitor, and what more do you really need? Oh, right, if you care, blah blah Moriarty, anarchists, gypsies, unstable Europe, Reichenbach. That should pretty well ought to cover it, except to promise that you will laugh.