Red State Premire. Look for the upcoming article from moi. I’m sure I’ll have a thought or two about it.
I truly love NY. Happiness is a large city with a pulse and erratic heartbeat.
March 5, 2011
February 12, 2011
The King’s Speech
I went to go see The King’s Speech for two reasons. Reason One: Oscar buzz. Reason Two: It’s black history month and I didn’t want to be called out for being a racist.
Long story short, The King’s Speech is great, but Martin Luther King, Jr. is nowhere to be found. In fact, it’s not about him at all. At first I thought they were going for the same thing that Emilio Estevez was doing with Bobby. But about 90 minutes in, I finally gave up on that notion and realized that it really just was about King George VI trying to overcome his stammer.
There is something factually wrong about the above paragraph. I’ll just sit here and read a magazine until you figure out what it is. What magazine? Why, Highlights of course. That Goofus is so rude, but that Gallant is remarkably kind-hearted. The simple fact that they’ve remained friends all these years is…
Oh, sorry. Give up? Yeah, it’s the sentence that begins “The King’s Speech is great…” because, for you see, if the King’s speech was actually great, there would be no movie. The King’s speech is actually quite horrible and that, dear reader, is where the amazingly funny and also heartfelt performance as the King’s Speech Therapist Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush, makes us all believe in miracles. All the Oscar talk seems to be focused square on Colin Firth for his portrayal of Dame King George VI, and a great performance it is. Full of quirky moments and stretches of dialogue that are the wet dreams of actors. But the glulam beam that holds the entire roof up, is Geoffrey Rush. When Firth is running around being royal and posh, Rush provides the audience with an entry into this world we know nothing about and his relationship to Mr. King George VI is second only to Helena Bonham Carter’s Queen Elizabeth.
There is something really great about the King and Queen’s relationship. It’s so normal and un-royal. They seem like a regular Joe and Jane Hammersmith. They love each other and she was willing to move heaven and high water to help the King with his little problem. Moments between them, moments like when they are crammed into a tiny elevator and they exchange a look of well-I-know-we-tried-everything-else-but-seriously-what-did-you-get-me-into-now, sell their relationship and feel genuine. It is those moments that parallel the little moments between common Geoffrey Rush and his common wife. Both men ultimately love their wives, love their country and love their jobs. They are the same guy, only one has better genes.1 The whole thing is exactly what you would expect for this type of film. Great acting, writing and cinematography. And that is why I don’t think it should win Best Picture.
What what whaaaat?
Yeah. You read that right. The King’s Speech is great, but it is great because the formula used to make is what great. Take a great and likable actor like Colin Firth, give him a character based on a real person with some kind of flaw, have him overcome that flaw, then maybe have him learn a little something about himself along the way. Combine that with great period costumes and British accents and you have yourself some Oscar Stew.2 I feel bad for punishing The King’s Speech for being good, but to quote an old saying, it just feels like it was born on third base and never actually hit a triple. It’s “dive difficultly” just wasn’t very high from the start. Maybe I’m just more impressed with a film like The Social Network which I thought wasn’t going to be that good and turned out to be pretty great. My expectation on The King’s Speech we’re high and just stayed there. I got what I expected, which is something one should never complain about, but didn’t get much more than I expected. But I will admit that it was funnier than I thought it would be. So bonus points for that.
Is The King’s Speech the Best Picture of 2010? I don’t think so, but it was a good picture and should be seen. Now I just need to find a movie to actually celebrate Black History Month. Has anybody seen Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son? I hear it is not nearly as Raven as College Road Trip.
1Which one? Geoffrey Rush - way less inbreeding.
2Oscar stew is very similar to Hobo Stew, but has less whiskey. The year Leaving Las Vegas won is an obvious exception the previous sentence
January 27, 2011
Trash Humpers and Kevin Smith
What does an experimental movie starring people in prosthetic masks who look like a cross between Johnny Knoxville/Spike Jones’ “Old Man” Jackass characters and the creepy dancing Six Flags guy and film raconteur Kevin Smith have in common? Probably more than you think. But I’ll get to that in a second. First, you probably want to know what the hell Trash Humpers is.
Trash Humpers is a movie with a pretty self-explanatory title. It is about people who hump trash. Actually, I don’t think it is “about” people who hump trash, because the word about implies that over the course of the film we would learn something about these characters. We don’t. There is no plot. There is no narrative structure. I think I went through Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey looking for a plot, and I couldn’t find one. Though, I did learn a little something about myself along the way.
So, is Trash Humpers a piece of performance art? Well, they are performing something, I guess. And art is inherently subjective, so I suppose some one somewhere would call it art. But is it entertaining? Sure… for about 15 minutes.
Picture this, the “film” (it was shot on a VHS camera, by a one of the trash humpers, as a record of their trash humping misdeeds) opens on one of these “old men” lying fully clothed on top of a large trash can. And he’s humping it. Furiously, furiously humping it. Cut to another old man trash humper orally manipulating a tree branch. Cut to an old lady trash humper humping a trash can. See a pattern? And just when you begin to think that it is just going to be old people humping trash, the start to smash things. They smash a non-flat screen TV, they smash a wall. SMASH!
I was able to acquire a copy of the script. This is all it said: Hump, hump, hump. Smash, smash, hump, hump, hump, smash. SMASH! HUMP! Smash. Hump. Hump-hump. Smash-hump-hump. SMASH! Huuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmppppppppp! Fin.
At one people an actual gray haired (really long hair with a scraggly beard) man in nothing but a diaper, recited a poem extolling the virtues of trash humping. Here is where you say: Hey, maybe they are going somewhere with this. This is also where you would be wrong. This fellow wasn’t their Moses sent to lead them to their trash humping holy land. How do I know? Because two scenes later he is killed by one of the trash humpers who also likes to smear blood on his face. Back to square one, I guess.
But what about the scene where they tried baby dolls to their bikes and rode around in a circle? Yeah, um, I don’t know.
But what about the scene where 13-year-old Drew Carey (yes, this little kid looks like he could be a young Drew Carey, complete with a square fat head, glasses and a suit with a skinny tie) puts a baby doll in a plastic bag and chokes it and then takes it out and tries to destroy it with a hammer? What does that mean? Hell if I know.
Yep, most of the movie just screams “LOOK HOW WEIRD WE ARE!” I’m not sure if the film is a joke that all the participants are in on, or if it is just a joke. Might be both.
What does it all mean? It means I am going to fall asleep with 20 minutes left and then put the DVD back in the Netflix sleeve and mail it away. Also, the Humper who does the camera work makes the most annoying squealing noises and it is beyond goddamn annoying. It’s godawful and becomes more grating than a plane full of crying babies with diarrhea who eat nothing by blue cheese hummus.
Trash Humpers, for me, is a complete and utter failure on all levels – except one. One very important level. I have never seen anything like it. It was an original work and sadly that is a rarity these days. Which brings me to Kevin Smith. See, I got there.
The internet has been having quite an episode about this new film Red State. For those who don’t know, Mr. Smith took his new movie–that he made without studio help with $4 million he raised himself–to Sundance where he said on Twitter that he would pick a distributor. Of course, this lead everyone one to assume that he was going to auction the move off to the highest bidder and it would be released like any other movie. But that didn’t happen. Instead he sold it to himself and is going to distribute it himself. First by taking the movie on the road and selling tickets to screenings with a Q & A afterwards which he will use the proceeds of to pay back the original investment and then put the rest toward prints and wider distribution.
And I say, kudos to you, Mr. Smith. But I don’t understand why it is such a big deal? And for the journalist’s out there complaining about it, isn’t it way more interesting to write about something like this than to write about how a movie went to Sundance, was sold and then distributed? You know, something that happens all the time? Plus, established artists in other genres have been forsaking the “system” and have been releasing their albums, art and whatnot by themselves for years now. I don’t think it is all that risky. He’s been in the business for a long time, made a name for himself, has a couple of the most popular podcasts on the internet, as released movies that consistently make $30 million theatrically a pop and do even better in DVD sales. The man is a one-man carnival. He doesn’t need expensive tv-spots and bus ads, he has 1,727,095 Twitter followers and a base of fans who maybe weren’t going to throw themselves on their swords for Cop Out, but will most surely come out in droves for his horror flick with religious undertones. I know I will. I can’t afford to put down $100 to see one of these advance screenings and Q&A’s but I’ll be there opening night for the wide release with my $11. Why? Because it’s new.
Let’s face it. Hollywood is broken. This last summer I tried to see a movie a week (hence the blog title) and ended up seeing 10 movies and 7 of them were either sequels or based on books/video games/TV characters. In fact, as I write this 8 of the 14 movies at my local theater are also based on other works, sequels or both. There is a Yogi Bear movie in 2011. Two Garfield movies and right now I am sure there is a struggling screenwriter in a Starbucks in L.A. trying to burn through the first draft of his Maude re-imagining. (Might I suggest the title: Red, White and Maude. Or maybe: In Maude We Trust? Call me Hollywood.) If this self-funded perpetual motion studio idea of Kevin Smith works and it yields one or two fresh movies a year, then I’m happy and everybody wins. And they don’t have to all be great, but as long as they are original and trying to be something good, I am in. Remember, I watched almost all of Trash Humpers just to get the idea of a Dallas movie out of my head.
I don’t hope the movie industry as we know it crumbles because of this either. I am not anti-studio. I loved some of those remakes and good movies still come out, but these days, it seems like they are fewer and farther between. Without studios we wouldn’t have Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, or The Harry Potter movies or Inception or the good pre-Pearl Harbor Michael Bay flicks. But there is room for both kinds of movies in a 30-screen cineplex. And if more people start to do their own thing and those movies start getting awards and making more money, I am sure the studios will soon go back to making smarter, edgy, more indie movies. After all, it is show business and they will make what makes money.
All that aside though, it is really nice to see someone who could be living comfortably and playing by the rules and not rocking the boat, do something unexpected. Like I said before, it is a marginal risk (way less risky than a convenience store worker putting $28,000 on a few credit cards though) and shaking things up. But it is a guy going at it with his own name on the line. I’m not sure if it qualifies as punk rock, but it is pretty gonzo. Get Kevin Smith some more pot (and maybe dip it is mescaline) and enjoy the ride. But seriously, there is really no need to see Trash Humpers. Watch the clip below and call it a day. You don’t need to see 80 minutes of it. It’s bullshit.
TRASH HUMPERS TRAILER from Trash Humpers on Vimeo.
January 14, 2011
Black Swan
Seeing Black Swan made me long for a Darren Aronofsky helmed Joker movie, starring Heath Ledger and Natalie Portman as Harlequin. I’m going to take Heath Ledgers death as a slight against me personally, because seriously, how cool would that have been? Love him or hate him, Aronofsky knows how to capture “crazy” on celluloid and that isn’t the easiest thing in the world to do. Example: Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a Dream, Natalie Portman in this particular swan feature and to a possibly a greater extent, Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler. Aronofsky made me believe that someone as hot as Marisa Tomei wanted to have sex with Mickey Rourke. The only explanation for that is pure, uncut crazy.
But enough about Aronofsky’s crazy skills and moving on to his crazy film. Seeing Black Swan as late as I did didn’t really afford me the opportunity to go into it with a blank slate. Of course I had heard about the little lesbian scene (in fact, I had watched that particular scene already – thanks internet!), I knew it was about a ballet dancer descending into madness and I knew that is was supposed to be a horror/thriller type thing.
Sadly, the lesbian scene isn’t all that hot. Don’t get me wrong, Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman are both very attractive but in these modern times, I can only get so excited about two could kissing with their bras still on. (Fuck you, Internet.) Yes they kissed. Yes Mila went down on Natalie, but not in a graphic way. In a nice way. In a way that was almost adorable. In a way that made me think, “Hey, good for you. You gals really got something going on here. I’m going to go watch SportsCenter.” You know, in that kind of way.
But this is not a horror movie. It just isn’t. Just because a movie is dark and an occasional murder occurs, doesn’t automatically make it a horror film. Or even a thriller. Sure, there were “thrilling” moments, but the movie itself doesn’t aim to keep you on the edge of your seat. I think it aims to tell an entertaining and crazy story about a ballet, which I am pretty sure, is a notch or two above trying to scale Mount Suribachi with nothing but toothpicks and floss on the “List of Difficult Shit That Seems Hard To Do.” Seriously, I’d rather have to fight an evil version of the self-aware taxi from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, than ever attempt to make a movie about ballet. Even if it was crazy ballet.
Ok, so we know it isn’t a horror movie and it is pretty far from being softcore porn, so what it is? It is most definitely self aware. I can very easily picture Aronofsky sitting down with Natalie and Mila and saying, “Listen, you are both very hot ladies and I want to put you in my crazy movie about ballet. And when I say crazy, it is going to be crazy. I’m talking melodrama. I’m talking about a mother on par with Mommy Dearest. I’m talking transmogrification.” And they agreed and boarded the crazy train for Looneytown.
But is it really that crazy? First of all, it is phenomenally shot. The backstage areas are beautifully creepy and the rest of the movie is sparse and full of ambiance created by lack of clutter, which causes certain things like the multitude of really awful paintings of Natalie Portman that her mother has in her room to really stick out. Aronofsky did a really good job of showcasing “crazy” in a picture frame made of “normal.” This serves to highlight the crazy. If everything is crazy, then nothing is (The More You Know… ). But for all the crazy that occurs, it all seems to make perfect sense. The dialogue is sharp and at no point does any character say or do anything that is out of the norm for the character. The words coming out of Natalie Portman’s mouth are things that any sane person would say; it’s the images in her head that are nuttier than squirrel shit. The film is very deliberate in its crazy in a way that an experimental film school movie isn’t. It takes the audience on a journey instead of running off ahead of them and making them play catch-up. There is no murder to solve nor is it a “whodunit.” For the kind of movie it is, it is more experience and less work.
So for my money, the film works. In fact, it could have gone a little crazier. It was probably a bit restrained in its crazy. But Mila Kunis is great in it and she’s funny. Also, it was great to see Winona Ryder again. I’d say that she kinda steals the movie, but I don’t want to violate her parole.
Black Swan
Directed by Darren Aronosky
Written By Mark Heyman, Andrés Heinz and John McLaughlin.
Starring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey and Winona Ryder.
December 22, 2010
True Grit
Perfection is hard to achieve and harder still to replicate. Where when you watch or listen to certain things, and they inspire greatness in yourself. For me, watching Barry Sanders highlight videos and thinking “I wish I could do anything as good as the things he could do with a football in his hands” or listening to Paul Simon’s “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” and thinking “I wish I could create one thing as perfect as that song.” I feel the same way with almost every Coen Brothers movie, and “True Grit” is no exception.
From the first frame to the last frame, they masterfully and beautifully tell a story that is ugly and tough but in the end uplifting. The lighting, the camera, the script the acting are so much above other movies, it is hard to even compare what the Coen Brothers do for a living to what someone like Brett Ratner does for a living. Back 2007, when “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood” were both nominated for Best Picture, I wrote a piece stating that they should have capped the Oscars off at two, because even putting a good moving like “Michael Clayton” in the mix with those two was ridiculous. I viewed it as akin to saying (and to borrow a joke from John Mulaney) that your favorite foods are lobster and Skittles. I guess what I am getting at is, the Coen Brothers did it again.
The amazing thing about “True Grit” is that it isn’t just a double-dip for the Coen Brothers. Apart from some of the desert settings, it is nothing like “No Country for Old Men.” Aside for Tommy Lee Jones, there were no “good people” in “No Country for Old Men,” it was mostly bad people doing bad things to each other. “True Grit” has a humanity to it that the Coen’s haven’t showcased in a long time. Even the “bad guys” in “True Grit” aren’t so bad. Sure, they are murders and scoundrels, but they are people and they have rules that they live by and let’s face it, they’re probably weren’t a lot of Saints walking around the old west.
Here is the gist of the story. Mattie Ross (played by Hailee Steinfeld) goes to town to try and find a Marshall/bounty hunter to bring the murderer of her father to justice. She is a scrappy 14-year-old that, of course, sees a lot of guff but will take none herself. She hires Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), a one-eyed drunk prick who has a penchant for killing those who he is supposed to track down rather than bring them before a court-of-law. Mattie insists in tagging along and on the hunt and they have develop an interesting relationship along the way. (And by releationship, I mean more of a father-daughter-type relationship. They don’t bang, if that is what you are wondering, you pervert.)
Also along for the ride is Texas Ranger LeBeuf (Matt Damon) who, of course, doesn’t really get a long with Mattie or Rooster and might be kind of a puss. Either way, the dialogue between all three is sharp and hilarious. (Favorite line: “This conversation runs the banks of the English language.”)
So, that is the nuts and bolts of the movie, but it hardly does it justice. Nothing in the movie feels forced, there are moments of real tension and heartbreaking disappointment, but in the end it all serves a beautiful purpose. And the way the movie is shot matches that purpose step for step. If “No Country” was shot in a way that was bleak, sparse and desolate then “True Grit” is shot in a way that is hopeful, lively and while not bursting with color, it’s selective use of color will surprise you. There is a scene toward the end of the film where Rooster is running a dusk and the sky behind him is vibrant and there are a millions of stars over his head. Even though something bad is happening, that shot gives you hope. Not to say that it has a “… and they lived happily ever after” type ending, because it does not. But the ending it does have has the perfect amount of humanity and sorrow to leave you satisfied.
So just go see it. It’s great, it should win awards and it’s probably the best Jeff Bridges best performance since “Stick It.”
August 15, 2010
The Expendables
The Expendables
Since hearing that this movie was a possibility I was in. It was kind of like the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon. Wait, there is a movie called Snakes on a Plane starring Sam Jackson? Well, I’ll be seeing that movie. Same thing goes with The Expendables. So you’re telling me Sylvester Stallone is writing/directing/starring in a movie with Dolph Lundgren? Yes. And Eric Roberts is the bad guy? I would have paid a hundred bucks to see this movie. I’m not kidding.
That being said, expectations were high. Not high in a way that I expected the movie to be Oscar worthy but high in the way that I really wanted to see a bad ass 80s/90s Sylvester Stallone action flick. Matt Damon kicking ass as Jason Bourne is awesome, but it can in no way match the bad-assery of Rambo or Over the Top. Am I right? I think that I am.
The great thing about The Expendables is that it isn’t an homage to those actions films of yore. It just is one. I think there is appoximatly one reference to someone having a cell phone (and it’s Jason Statham) and never once does a character sit down in front of a computer. This movie could have been set in the 80s and nothing would have changed. It is kind of like Return to Sleepaway Camp. Sleepaway Camp was a horror series that came out in the 80s and was campy and cheesy and bad and fun. In 2008 the original writer/director decided to make Return to Sleepaway Camp and instead of all these slasher movies that pay tribute to 80s horror films, Return to Sleepaway Camp was an 80s horror film, just set in 2008. Why? Because the director didn’t know how to make any other kind of movie. When Stallone sits down in his writers garret he writes what he knows… movies with big guns where guys need to invent reasons to take their shirts off.
It even follows the typical format of an action film. Since The Expendables are a group of guys for hire that shoot people for money, the movie opens with them completing a mission and it going swimmingly (well, except for Jet Li who seems to get his ass kicked for about two-thirds of the film) and against some pirates. Then they return home where they shoot the shit with each other and have knife throwing contests. One of them has lady problems too. (I know, right?) So then they meet with a mysterious man in a church who gives them a dangerous mission to overthrow some dictator in [insert generic Latin American country] and they accept but things don’t quite go as planned. But fortunately for them, every problem they encounter can be solved by using bigger guns. There is no morals. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Though, it was kind of weird to see Angel from Dexter as the Latin American dictator.
So that’s it. It is was what I thought it would be… and that it awesome. If you like those kind of films, you’ll love it. If you don’t, you won’t. Simple enough.
There is one thing that I think we, as a society, should take away from this film. At one point one of the bad guys is set on fire and then one of the Expendables runs up to him and starts punching him. I think we need to replace the phrase “kicking a man when he is down” to “punching a man when he’s on fire.” Or maybe that could be the next step. So, if your hanging out with your friend who has just been dumped and then you start making out with your girlfriend right in front of him, then that is “kicking him when he is down.” But, if you with that same guy who was just dumped and you start having anal sex with the girl that just broke his heart right in front of him, that my friends, is “punching a guy when he is on fire.”
And that is The Expendables.
Directed by Sylvester Stallone
Written by Dave Callaham and Sylester Stallone
Starring Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts Randy Couture Steve Austin, Terry Crews and Mickey Rourke.
July 23, 2010
Inception
Inception
Written and Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Kn Watanable and Tom Berenger
A lot of what I do here is comparing one movie to another occurrence or event and pointing out weird (sometimes half-assed) parallels between the two works. Inception doesn’t really allow me to do that. It is truly it’s own unique thing, like it or hate it, that stands on its own two legs and never feels derivative. In other words, Inception is the “ying” to a movie like Grown-Ups “Yang.”
Inception is the movie that I was most looking forward to seeing this summer. In my eyes, Christopher Nolan hasn’t missed yet. Arguably his weakest film is Insomnia and even THAT I found to be a pretty cool little thriller and have even re-watched it a few time on cable.
But after The Prestige and The Dark Night, my hopes were set pretty high for Inception, but I was a little worried by the special-effects-laden trailers. Those fears were quickly assuaged and from the moment that WB logo hit the screen, I was all in.
What is amazing to me is that Christopher Nolan could make this film in 2 years. Somewhere, James Cameron is crying into a pile of money muttering, “Unobtainium - How could I be so f-ing stupid? Unobtainium!” over and over to himself. What does Christopher Nolan have going for him that James Cameron doesn’t? Christopher Nolan knows how to tell a story that feels original and uses special effects to ENHANCE the storytelling instead of BEING the story. If you release a movie and the first reaction you get from people is that the effects look really cool, you failed.
But enough about that. What is Inception? It’s a little hard to describe. Saying it is a “dream” is a major copt-out, because it isn’t, but it kind of is. It’s more about the IDEA of dreaming and how the brain processes information and less about being weird for the sake of weird, like more “dream” flicks. Does that make sense? It’s almost as if Christopher Nolan saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and turned to his producer and said, “Oh it’s Game on, Charlie Kaufman.”
Here are the nuts and bolts of Inception. Leonardo DiCaprio is really awesome at going into peoples dreams and getting them to reveal things they have been hiding, usually concerning money. This process is called “extraction.” Now, this is fairly easy and not a movie-worthy process. He is offered a chance to get back to the U.S. (he did something and can’t return) if he is able to do an “Inception” which is to plant an idea into a persons brain during a dream. This is much harder (some would contend it is impossible) because the human brain very easily rejects an idea being yours that isn’t yours (unless your Carlos Mencia.) So Leo tries to do the inception and that is what the film is about. Simple, no?
Inception isn’t really hard to understand but it is not for a minute dull or uninteresting. Like I said before, Christopher Nolan knows how to tell a story REALLY well. So well that the ending might just piss you off a little, but in a good way.
On a personal note, I think that everybody who enjoys movies should see Inception even if you don’t think this is the type of movie for you. Why? Because in a summer movie season that is almost entirely made up of sequals, retreads, reimaginings and Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, Inception is an original work of art. And original works of art are so few and far between in Hollywood these days, that they should be rewarded with our money. I’m glad it has made over $100 million and I hope it makes $500 million more. Please go see it, if not for me, then for your children.
Chris’ Review: Pretty Pretty Pretty Pretty Pretty Good.
July 2, 2010
The Twilight Saga: 90210
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Directed by David Slade
Written by Melissa Resenberg (Based on the novel by Stephenie Meyer)
Starring Kristen Steward, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke and Taylor Lautner
Going into the film, I knew very little about the Saga but I was never a Twilight hater – it is just something I didn’t care much about. I am amused by the ire the series tends to draw though. When I was at the San Diego Comic-Con there was a very large Twilight contingent there and an almost equally as large contingent of nerds who thought it was stupid, hurting America and was only liked by little girls and people with no life. I actually remember hearing a 40-year-old guy dressed as Qui-Gon Jinn call Twilight, “A waste of time for people with no life.”
Pot meet Kettle.
I just looked at Twilight as something that was not for me. The same way I look at CocoaPuffs and The Goonies. I missed the boat and am too far removed to “get it.” After all, I am 28-years-old and, just like I shouldn’t like shirts with colorful dragons and sparkly shit on it, shouldn’t really be into Twilight.
But here I was, hurriedly finishing my second of two Sam Adams Summer Ales to get in line for the midnight screening of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. And here is the kicker… I had a good time. It was a really fun movie. Sure there were times I was confused, especially when the movie opened on Bella and Edward in a field in the sunlight. My head almost exploded like Edward should have from being in the sun. He is a vampire right? But, I guess in the Twilight universe, vampires and the sun are cool with each other and the sun makes them sparkle. I’d like the think that later on in the series, we learn that the sun is giving them all skin cancer and is killing them slowly. I guess I am just a traditionalist, in that sense. I like my vampires to be vulnerable to the sun and my zombies to be slow and swarming.
As the film went on, I was liking it more and more but I couldn’t figure out why, and then it came to me… Twilight is 90210 (the old one, not the new one). Here is my proof. Edward Twilight is Dylan McKay. He’s brooding, good looking, has the sideburns and the reserved detachment (but you can tell deep down he really cares.) He’s got some family issues, a nice house and doesn’t say more than he has to but is also a little hot headed.
Jacob is Brandon Walsh. Both come from more humble beginnings, are good people and always do the right thing. They follow their hearts and conscience and when it comes down to it, are just too nice and end up getting hurt by the girl they love (on in Jacob’s case, BECAUSE of the girl he loves).
That would make Bella the one-and-only Kelly Taylor. She’s torn between what her head knows is right and what her heart wants. Just like Kelly and Brandon were the smart choice and worked well together, they just didn’t have the spark that Kelly and Dylan had. Bella would obviously be better off if she choose Jacob, but she can’t because it is almost too easy. When Jacob makes his pitch to her in the film, he even says, “You pick me and you get to stay human.” Should would literally rather DIE than pick Jacob. When Kelly went back to Dylan, she know there was a possibility that she would get exploded in a car. Same thing, right? If my theory is true, I look forward to seeing Bella joining a cult, almost dying in a fire, becoming addicted to drugs, throwing away her modeling career and trying to help her virgin girlfriend who loves her boyfriend even after he throws her down some stairs.
So, how could I not like Twilight? I loved 90210 when it was on and Twilight is new version of a classic (and better than the new 90210 because there are vampires). Maybe I just have extremely low expectations going into the film, but there were moments where it was funny and action-y.
Here are the drawbacks, there is some laughably cheesy dialogue. Also, the penultimate fight scene is WAY too short. The whole movie is leading up to this massive battle between these crazy strong “new born” vampires and the Twilight clan which has brokered a temporary alliance with the Werewolves, and it is over before it even begins. I was informed that is is how it is in the book, and if so, that is just bad storytelling. If you are going to build something like that up, pay it off.
Also, Taylor Lautner is an phenomenally bad actor. On the emotion scale, he seems only a degree or two above Paul Walker. And for being as juiced as he is, he seems like the least coordinated guy on the planet. If you were to throw him a football it’d probably just hit him in the face, then he’d trip over his feet trying to pick it up and then when he went to throw it back to you he’d have to ask what the laces we for. The scenes were he is carrying Bella and trying to run through the woods, at the same time, are just uncomfortable to watch. I can just picture the director yelling cut and then saying, “Taylor, we’re only asking you to pick up a 100 pound girl and run, not explain how the Mandebrot Set works. Let’s try this again, and this time, how about you try to look LESS like a spaz. Ok?” Also, what is up with Jacob ALWAYS being shirtless and what’s with the skin tight “jorts” (Jean shorts) that they make him wear? This further confirms my Brandon Walsh comparison, as Brandon always had to wear polo shirts that he tucked into his jeans - IN HIGH SCHOOL.
Ok, enough bagging on Taylor Lautner.
Anyway, I enjoyed The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and might even go back and watch the first two films (ok, I probably won’t). But there are worse movies to be forced to see. I was way more disappointed in Grown Ups. At least in Twilight, it seemed like the people involved were actually trying to be entertaining. Also, to all the guys who are forced to go see Twilight with their girlfriends… don’t worry, it won’t make you gay – just slightly bi-curious.
Chris’ Review: Pretty good.
June 29, 2010
Twilight Running Diary
11:14 p.m. I decided to get a couple beers before embarking on my Twilight Journey. From 10:45p rill now the line has more than doubled in size with Tweens, scrary middle aged guys here without kids and an umbrella, a van who I am sure will be recruiting kids to help find his dog or check out the awesome “figures” he has in his basement. They are selling RedBull in line. Twilight fans are decadent and depraved.
11:28 p.m. — I just heard one group of Tweens say to another “Oh, you’re Team Jacob? We’re no longer talking to you. I just spoke to the people with the Redbull, turns out it is free and they are part of the Redbull “Wings Team” that go around to different events handing out free Redbull. Long-story short, I got free Redbull. Just noticed homemade wife beaters that say Eclipise 2010”… it just got real.
11:38 p.m. - I’m in the theater. The smell of Redbull and angst are almost overpowering. I think I would feel more comfortable if I was planning on abducting a bakers dozen of these girls/boys, but I’m not and which is somehow intrinsicly more creepy.
11:53 p.m. - There are camera flashes going on all around me. Tomorrow, my greatest fear of not being tagged in a massive amount of Facebook photos will be realized. My friend just showed me a “Texts from Last Night” that read: You should give me head with plastic fangs in.” I just want to shout “BAD IDEA!” at the top of my lungs, but I know such acts are futile and will only draw attention to my 28-year-old Twilight going self. I remain stoic and silent. I remain.
11:58 p.m. - The women (yes, I used that word to correctly identify their ages) behind me are engaged in a spirited debate about Twilight lore and what forces who controls and who sacrifices themselves and what that really means. I think that are old and sad… then I remember every conversation I have had in late July/early August in San Diego about whether “Greedo shooting first” ultimatly changed that Star Wars movies and who was a better pilot Wedge or Luke, and I forgive them and wallow in my own pool of shame. Excelsior!
12:03 a.m. - Trailers are starting. Must run silent. If you need me, remember, two pings. See ya on the other side.
June 29, 2010
Pre-Twilight: Eclispe
So, I am doing it. I am seeing “Twilight: Eclipse” tonight (Wednesday, June 29) at the 12:01 a.m. screening. This is what One Movie A Week has brought me to — “Sex and the City 2” and “Twilight: Eclispe” in the same summer (which will also most certainly lead to my first period and yeast infection. Are you there god? It’s me, Chris. And I’m scared.)
Seeing that I will be viewing Twilight: Eclipse I thought I would write down what I know about the saga before hand.
What so I know about the Twilight series? Having not read the books or seen the other movies, this is what I can deduce. The protagonist is named Bella. She is brooding, sexually repressed and confused. (So she might also be a gay teenaged boy who lives in a small southern town next to Jesus). Now Bella, who is kinda hot in an Emo sort of way, is caught in some kind of weird love triangle with a vampire who sparkles and ripped hairless werewolf. The sparkle-pire is named Edward Twilight and he is also sexually repressed, depressed but nicely dressed. Edward Twilight is a good vampire who takes the time to get to know Bella, listen to her thoughts and fears and begin a relationship of longing looks and missed chances. Unlike typical vampires who put the rape and murder of humans at the top of their to-do lists. Also, apparently the guy who plays Edward Twilight doesn’t really like to bathe all that much, which doesn’t have much to do with the film, but is more of a random factoid that stuck in my brain.
Edward Twilight is locked in a love-battle with Jacob Werewolf, who I don’t know much about. I know that he is a pretty stacked fellow, who has a “team” that is made up of prepubesent girls and middle-aged pedophiles. Does Bella like? Do they both like each other? I must do some investigative journalism and get to the bottom of this journey.
Supposedly this movie, Twilight: Eclispe, there is a epic battle, which I presume will be between Edward Twilight and Jacob Werewolf. I have also been told to expect massive amounts and screaming and possibly some fainting.
And that is all I know. I might update this with some thoughts and “waiting in line” reactions as the night continues. Right now the only thought that keeps repeating in my head is, “how long is this movie?” and “if I hear any Morrisey I am fucking leaving.”
Reporting from the middle of the volcano, this is Chris. Good night and good morrow.
RSS feed: http://onemovieaweek.tumblr.com/rss
1 of 2
Next page
