Category: Reviews

I make Love to them

Published by NiteMayr on July 22, 2008

I make Love to them, originally uploaded by NiteMayr.

You know, when I think about it more “Wanted” the movie fell pretty far short of the bar set by “Wanted” the comic. Here you have a series of panels that illustrate this fact fairly succinctly.

Mr. Rictus (The Joker) is the main villain, he’s crazier than two syphilitic mimes from the middle ages. He is tired of the status quo and is leaving a meeting of the 5 most malevolent beings on earth when he is confronted by Wesley Gibson, who’s Nom de guerre is “The Killer”

They are Super Villains.

SUPER

VILLAINS

The Hero of the Comic Murders cops and commits innumerable crimes. It is vile and inhuman, and immeasurably entertaining. The Bad Guys DO win in the end; it’s all a matter of which bad guys.

Review: The Dark Knight

Published by NiteMayr on July 21, 2008

I’ve had some time to consider “The Dark Knight” and to get over the whole “No More Joker like that” feeling that it left me with when it was over; time to consider the whole put some thought into its merits and failings.

Gotham Itself

Foremost in those Merits is the Art/Photography. The whole film feels like it was filmed on Location, instead of a series of sets. Where Movies like “X-Men 3” felt like the scale of the film should have been epic and was instead tabletop sized; a movie about the conflict between two men was so grand in scale and broadly shot with sweeping backdrops. It was masterful; as I stated earlier Gotham was shot as another character in the film without gaudy makeup and CGI flourish. It was a welcome change. The “Batcave” was also exceptional; instead of the visual cacphany of the traditional Batcave we are treated to a spartan and functional HQ that serves as the home of the Batman. Did anyone else notice how BRIGHT the “Batcave” was? It wasn’t until the Lights went off at the Batcave that things really got down to business; which I imagine was the metaphor that ran through the whole movie.

Alfred

Speaking of unvarnished Characters; Alfred gets a back story in this film that precludes some of his own history. He has served the Wayne Family for how long? He used to be a mercenary/soldier in where? Hmmm. It seems that a former soldier might not take to the life of a butler as readily as the former actor. Can we get a nice firm Public School Education and life of service in place for Alfred and just leave it there? Please? Michael Caine was (as ever) a fine character actor; he has settled into the “wise older guy/father figure” role very well. The next man to fill the role after Mr. Caine will have trouble shaking the dignified and meaty role that Michael Caine has carved from Alfred. Not Camp. not “Fussy School Marm”, just a Man’s Man who happens to be a butler.

Rachel Dawes

Maggie Gyllenhall; gah. I think I just don’t like her as an actor. Sure, she is more of a character than Katie Holmes carried in “Batman Begins” but only because she pouts and acts more upset with Bruce Wayne than in the former. I jsut don’t buy her as a lawyer, she seems far to passive to be a real lawyer, especially as an Assistant DA. Speaking of that; why isn’t Rachel the DA? She has Bruce Wayne backing her for gosh’s sake. That is kind of emblematic of the uneven writing that makes Rachel so poor; she motivates two big characters but isn’t self-motivating. She just reacts and her biggest moment comes. <spoiler>post-mortem</spoiler> which kind of sucks for the actress. She scores her points by looking alternatively annoyed, scared or sad.

Harvey Dent/Two-Face

Aaron Eckhart; Harvey Dent. What can be said about the blonde-haird blue-eyed Harvey Dent that wasn’t repeated over and over again in the press about him all over Gotham? Gotham’s white knight! The guys on the force had another name for him: “Two Face”. The only thing is that they don’t establish WHY they called him Two Face; only that he was called it behind his back. If I remember correctly; in some far-off corner of my mind there was a portrayal of Harvey that showed him being bad-ass in private; thus showing the schism in his personality up front. Aaron tries to demonstrate this schism on screen, in a hoarse scream that appears as if by magic at points; but I don’t think his performance was strong enough. It was good; but not great.

The Joker / The Batman

I give Christian Bale and Heath Ledger equal billing here. They are as much the same character as the source material allows. In the comics; other heroes will often decry that Batman will always go over the edge and too far when solving the world’s problems. The opposite is true; of course, The Batman doesn’t ever go too far; he is always prepared and has planned this out. The same is true for the Joker; who WANTS to be caught and stopped by The Batman. The Batman and The Joker occupy the same space; with both seeking to make the world see things and do things their way. The Joker might be doing it for the Lulz, but it’s still the same psychology that drives them. “The Dark Knight” does a great deal to illustrate that neither the Joker nor The Batman gamble and both seem to have all the angles covered. The conflict that ensues is epic; if not exhausting. The yawning physical gulf between the two characters (demonstrated through sweeping helicopter shots showing each character’s approach to looking over the city) is also lost when you can see how close the two man are to each other. They are shadowy men with pasts that are known only to their intimates. It seems that the only thing that keeps The Batman from being The Joker are those around him. All of this is beautifully portrayed by both actors; with Bale continuing to play his “Patrick Bateman” Bruce Wayne to great effect. Heath Ledger pulls in a performance of the Joker that reaches new highs that I don’t imagine would be easily eclipsed.

Da-Da Da-Da Da-Da Da-Da Da-Da Dead Man!

Published by NiteMayr on July 19, 2008

Yeah, that was tasteless.

I’m actually fairly bummed about “The Dark Knight,” It was WAY too good. Far too good. If it had been less of a film; the craft of it less so. I could have walked away and just said, “Another Batman flick, good stuff!” maybe swanned on about the effects and the characters. Aaron Eckhart was great as Harvey Dent, The Ken Doll DA of Gotham; his fate sealed on film. Christian Bale flexed and burned on film, with a clean line between “Bruce” and “The Bat” Maggie Gyllenhaal did her best to make want her to die on film. And Heath Ledger? You mean, THE JOKER? Well, Heath has pretty much defined the film version of the Joker. It will take a RADICAL re-imagining to take the Joker to anything higher than the bar set in this film.

However, I have strayed from my point.

The film was too good. So it was tragic.

Alas, that is the essense of REAL Art, isn’t it. Art is fleeting and all else is commerce. Now we get a “Joker” on film who really lives up to the Joker from “The Killing Joke” a moralist with no consience or heart.

All for just 152 minutes. Those last 152 min are the best.

Defending Eddie Murphy

Published by NiteMayr on July 15, 2008

“Coming from ‘Saturday Night Live’ and doing stand-up, I’ve always done multiple characters,” he tells Thea. “I’ve always mixed it up at the movies; it’s kind of what I do.”

“I really like it when you don’t know who it is,” he beams. “Like if I do something and you watch the movie, and afterwards you’re like, ‘Hey, you know that old lady was him’ — and they’re like, ‘What?!!!'”

Eddie says the new movie, also starring Gabrielle Union and Elizabeth Banks, is very “sweet and funny” and kid-friendly.

–Eddie Murphy: Inside the head of ‘Meet Dave’

That last quote contains the death knell that tolled for Eddie Murphy “Kid-friendly” now, that death-knell sounded out its dull “Bong” years ago. It was heard right in the middle of “Doctor Dolittle 2” for me, it may have been around the time “Beverly Hills Cop 3” came out I’m not sure. Yes, “Pluto Nash” was crap on film. Let me say that again, “Pluto Nash” was so bad it might have actually killed Randy Quaids career altogether. That movie was a horrible pox on the movie industry. “Norbit” was better than “Pluto Nash” do you know why? Eddie Murphy could curse in it.

I can sum up what makes Eddie Murphy funny by quoting Eddie Murphy in “The Absent Minded Professor”: “Shit Locks!”

The whole Dave Chappelle sequence was AWESOME! Larry miller coming down on him in outrageous terms was great!

Eddie Murphy is failing the exact opposite reason Mike Myers if failing. Mike Myers is being bounced because he is still falling back on his punny, schticky humor and Eddie Murphy is failing because he stopped being filthy and started being startlingly kid focused. Even “Norbit” was all about kids, in a way.

In a word of advice to Mr. Murphy, no one under the age of 30 really remebers “Raw” or “Delirious”. If you don’t get out there and remind us of the filthy but genius Eddie Murphy we loved, you are going to be box office poison from now on.

Review: Love Guru

Published by NiteMayr on July 11, 2008

At the time of this writing “The Love Guru” is running at 15% at Rotten Tomatoes. I’ve written about how this movie is being held up as an example of Mike Myers’ descent into mediocrity. I don’t need to rehash any of what I said there about the man himself, but what to say about the movie?

In short, I laughed at it. It’s juvenile, it’s facile, but it’s funny. The Character “Guru Pitka” is juvenile, it’s what he does. He uses low-brow humor to put the people around him at ease. It’s the depth of this character that the critics are missing, they are trying to find a tortured clown in there and missing the joyful clown that the character is. One can only admire a character who is so unbound by the world that they can punch a little person with no obvious regret or misgivings. Would that we would all feel so free, especially in the way the two forgave each other immediatley.

Yes, it was improbable and often insulting, but it was Comedy! Real comedy. One Liners, penis jokes, fart jokes, Elephants Making Love in the Air Canada Centre! Why are people down on this movie? It’s a great “straight” comedy. No need for subtext or veneer, just obvious puns and slapstick, it’s acceptable when “new” comedians do it, right?

Perhaps that is why this movie has failed at the box office, it isn’t new. It’s familiar like an old shoe and perhaps old shoes aren’t what people want.

Review: Wanted (the movie) Vs Wanted (the comic)

Published by NiteMayr on July 10, 2008

Disclaimer: I am a fan of comics, a serious fan of comics and overall a fan of the WANTED comic. My opinions are going to be skewed and should not be taken as the sanction or prohibition of a sane reviewer.

EDIT: Check out a graphic representation of why The Comic is Superior

Let me first state three impressions I got from this film overall, the director loves slow motion, Glass breaks into little squares when people run through it and script consistency was not job #1 when the final shooting script was used.

For example, we are treated to a superhuman display of speed and agility by someone who were are initially led to believe is one of only two people with said magical skills in the movie. However, later in the film it is revealed that this person is not one of the two. While it is demonstrated that “Sloan” has some skills, only James McAvoy’s character is supposed to be in possesion of said magical killing abilities. Why then in the twist do we find out that the character of the dead man is not whom we are told he is, thereby negating the “only two people” line from earlier? Perhaps I misheard it?

Angelina Jolie can look as if she wants to eat children if she holds her head a certain way, in the first scene with Angelina Jolie she makes a kind of concerned/concentration face that lets me fully believe that she is a hardened comic villain. It’s too bad the story strays so far from the comic, as her character is totally wasted. (literally)

I am aware that Mark Millar was enthusiastic about the film; but this is one of those situations where the creator and the fans might have to disagree. “Wanted” the film is a great ation film, but the loss of the “evil” parts of Wesley’s training and the total loss of the wanton violence and wonder of the Super Villains makes the movie less entertaining than the book. I like the movie, but loved the book.

I didn’t think “Wanted” was horrible, and enjoyed the action, but won’t recommend it over the book. If you are in the mood for a hard action movie with a great deal of visual flair, by all means, check it out. If you are a fan of the book, don’t go into it expecting too much.

Review: Wild Hogs

Published by NiteMayr on July 6, 2008

I get the feeling that the producer was sitting in his Valley living room, thinking that he should finally make that Gay Sex Farce he’d been planning to make for years and said to himself (or herself I didn’t check) that they should forget about using twinks and go straight for middle aged actors. When they couldn’t get real middle aged porn actors to star in their Gay Sex Farce, they decided to call in some Scilon help and cast John Travolta.

One 70s star doesn’t really make a great Gay Sex Farce, so they decided to cast another actor who had (under duress) looked for comfort in the arms of another man. That way they would have at least one Camp actor and one “Butch” actor in the bunch. Then they hired a nerd and a black guy to round out the cast.

So, with a cast in place an a loose plot involving a road trip for middle aged motorcycle enthusiasts escaping their wives for the week and discovering their intimate feelings ROAD HOGS, the Gayest Gay joke ever was in production. Except the title was changed to Wild Hogs so it would not be so obviously Gay.

The whole movie seems to be one long Gay Joke, I’d have taken it for a Gay Sex Farce if it wasn’t for the fact that the Gay part is treated as if it is poisonous radioactive waste, instead of a campy joke. If I remember correctly this film-opus to the Carry-On films was number one in the box office when it was released. It was only pushed out of the top spot by “300” where shirtless Spartans opiled up and beat an army sensless with their pecs for a couple of hours.

I have to admit that I had a couple genuine laughs during this, much as I did during “Norbit” but this really was a fairly crappy, homophobic pile of crap. I think that one might have to take leave of their senses to spend money on this one. Avoid, watch the Carry On films instead, at least the Camp Sex Farces are kind of funny.

It Sucks, why I won't use the Roger's DVR.

Published by NiteMayr on June 30, 2008

I lived in the States from March 2002 until August 2007. I was a comcast customer for 100% of that time, having free basic cable as part of my rental package at the townhouse. I can’t say I hated Comcast, and in fact I really liked their dual-tuner DVR solution. I tried out the TIVO as a replacement and found it too cumbersome a soultion (after having the Comcast solution for over a year at the time). When I returned to Canada, I lived with my parents out in boonies (Kincardine) where the local Cable company had the same basic hardware and sofware as Comcast, which was great. The software was easy to use, allowed me to set up reminders and search for shows by name. Great, huh? I could set up season passes for shows and be reminded on screen that they were on, pressing the swap button let me swpa between tuners with impunity and both had a good hour long stream in reserve. TV viewing heaven.

The best I can say for the Rogers DVR is that I could pause TV.

I couldn’t search for shows by name, I had to scroll through an alphabetic list of every occurence of a given show, with shows thaty are syndicated in there, we had hundreds of identical listings to scroll through. This took ages.

When I did find a show I wanted to record, I could set it to record a number of occurances, but no season pass and no “record only new shows” option was available, I also had to make sure I was recording it on the channel I wanted to. With newer shows that were also syndicated, this was giant pain in the ass.

Then there is the HD handling, can’t they figure out how to push all NON HD content at 480p or 480i so that we don’t have to have all the damn bars burning my CRT?

Big Red, you need to get in touch with comcast and get your cable hardware in order, this software has been around since before I left Canada in 2002. It’s time to upgrade.

Since reviews are subjective: Manohla, F**K your reviews

Published by NiteMayr on June 27, 2008

I haven’t seen “Wanted” yet. I want to. I do. I don’t subscribe to the theory that male on male violence is some sort of release for homosexual angst. This reviewer seem to think any kind of male on male violence is a precursor to surprise butt secks and sword fights.

Case an point “Manohla Dargis” reviews “Wanted” with this turn of phrase:

And Mr. Bekmambetov, a Russian filmmaker who has earned a cult following with his razzly-dazzly thrillers â€œDay Watchâ€ and â€œNight Watch,â€ certainly proves here that he knows how to use every blunt tool of the bullying trade: flashy effects, zippy cuts, simulated death, walls of sound, wheels of steel and, in between the bullets and blood, a hot mama to make the brother-to-brother, man-on-man action less worrisome. This is, after all, a movie almost entirely organized around the sights and sounds of men piercing one anotherâ€™s bodies, which makes for a whole lot of twitching and spurting.

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/movies/27want.html

Emphasis added by your faithful blogger

First of all, who begins a sentence with “And”? The word ‘and’ shouldn’t be used that way; and is used to join concepts as an additive (you suck as a reviewer AND you are a hack) see? That’s how one uses ‘and’!

The thrust of this little expulsion is to draw attention to the throbbing members of the review, all veiny and proud. (See I can make penis jokes too!) However, I’m not a highly paid reviewer for the New York Times. I assume highly paid, for all I know this person could be an intern. However, their review history says otherwise. That’s a good five year history there; good, nothing I write will hurt their feelings, they sat through and enjoyed Fido they clearly lost their sense of reason and ability to discern value in a film before they took up the reviewers pen.

I see nothing wrong with being funny in your reviews, I remember one review from Robert Ebert where the whole thing devolved into an anecdote about how a pair of young audience members could not get into a movie about pretty lesbians. I can accept eccentricity in a review as well; but to pare a movie into a long gay joke? Why? It was the same with Jackass, Borat, Eastern Promise and Fight Club, any kind of bare chested fighting gets into a movie and the main characters are suddenly picking out china patterns and looking for an apartment on Church Street in Toronto.

You know, I was bouncing around the idea of a Gay Cowboy movie years ago, not like Brokeback, but a real gay COWBOY movie, with action and gunplay and so on. In a movie like that, you would expect gay jokes and so on, but with movies with clearly male-focused plot some reviewers can’t help themselves but to project a homosexual idea onto it. Does that say more about the reviewer or the movie?

Poor news reporting sickens me

Published by NiteMayr on June 25, 2008

This certainly looks shocking:

Court overturns father’s grounding of 12-year-old

A Canadian court has lifted a 12-year-old girl’s grounding, overturning her father’s punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet, his lawyer said Wednesday.

…

According to court documents, the girl’s Internet transgression was just the latest in a string of broken house rules. Even so, Justice Suzanne Tessier found her punishment too severe.

Beaudoin noted the girl used a court-appointed lawyer in her parents’ 10-year custody dispute to launch her landmark case against dear old dad.

From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080618/wl_canada_afp/canadachildcourtoffbeat_080618180800

This is as detailed as I could get from the general web, I ended up having to search using the Lawyers name to find this article from the National Post:

Quebec girl wins court case over field trip

And while the case is raising some eyebrows, a tangled behind-the-scenes custody battle must be taken into account, said Montreal family law lawyer, Miriam Grassby.

“It’s a very different situation than a child who might appear to not be be happy with the parent’s decision and simply saying â€˜I’m going to go court and I’m going to get what I want,” she said. “And if in fact it’s been portrayed that way, it’s not putting in its complex context.

From: http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=597169

I never thought the day would come that I would be praising the national post (again, I think) but there it is, real context and details that make the whole thing plausible and sane. There is a behind the scenes fight going on where the daughter has moved back with her mother and there is a battle going on between the two households. With that context in place, the ruling seems a great deal less shocking.

If one was only to read the light on details story one could easily assume the the courts were subverting the father’s authority over a willful and disrespectful child. This would send shockwaves through the whole of parentdom, no more punishments. On Noes!

The truth, as always, is a great deal muddier and requires more reading that most news sources provided. I shouldn’t have to research this crap on my own, I should be handed the facts up front and draw good conclusions, instead I have to treat every headline like it is out to lie to me. That’s no way to present news guys.