Subversive, my ass! No pun intended

There is a scene in Kick-ass in which a mob boss (Mark Strong) punches Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) in the face numerous times while she's lying on the floor. This is supposed to be justified by the fact that Hit Girl has been trained to be an assassin since she was 5. She's tough, she can take it. This is just one of the many questionable things that this movie puts its characters through. And then it asks us to buy it as satire, subversiveness, entertainment.
Based on the comic-book by Mark Millar, the movie follows Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a high school geek who one day decides that it would be cool to put on a costume and become a super-hero because hey, if Bruce Wayne could do it and he had no real powers... Right? Dave takes on the name Kick-Ass and starts patrolling the streets at night. The results aren't exactly encouraging because Dave gets not only beaten up but also stabbed.However, he does become a cultural phenomenon and soon realizes that thanks to him, other people got it into their minds that they can become superheroes. Eventually, Dave crosses paths with Hit Girl, the before mentioned 11 year-old assassin whose mouth would make Quentin Tarantino blush, her father, Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a 17 year wacko with his own agenda. They all drag poor Dave into a war against the mob...
I wanted to love this movie so bad. I'm a huge superhero geek and this concept sounded appealing to me from the get go. And I have to be fair and say that I was perfectly aware of all the controversy surrounding the movie, especially Chloe Moretz. I was prepared for a hard R rated bloodfest. Or at least I thought I was

This has got to be on of the most mean-spirited and cynical movies to come out in recent years. It portrays violence as something hip, cool and shows it for the sake of shock value. When you show such explicit violence, you need to have some context or motivation for it. For example, the Bride in Kill Bill or Marv in Sin city were characters who resort to extreme violence to get what they want. But they had a goal to achieve. They were driven by revenge and their actions were meant to lead somewhere. Kick-Ass shows violence just to get a reaction out of the audience. Granted, Big Daddy has a motive of his own for turning his daughter into a cold-blooded assassin, but it's used in a pretty limp way and is an excuse for Hit Girl to chop people's heads off.
Another thing that bothered the hell out of me is the inexplicable and sudden change in tone. The movie starts in a cheerful manner and shows what it would be like if someone woke up and decided to become a superhero pretty well. But the moment Dave meets Big Daddy and Hit Girl and the violence really kicks in, I started hating this movie. We get the before mentioned scene of Hit Girl getting punched in the face, another character is beaten with a baseball bat to a pulp and then practically burned alive...
Another major issue is that the movie presents itself as a satire of the superhero genre. But the whole thing (the second half especially) takes itself too seriously for that. The violence is very real, people die in the most hideous ways. This is not making fun of anything, no matter how much it tries to convince itself that it is.
Admirers of the movie (and there are many) call it "subversive", that it has a point, that its graphic nature is aimed towards a point. I disagree. In order to be subversive, a movie has to stand-up for something bigger, prove something.
Which brings me to my next point...
Others call Kick-Ass this generation's Fight club. Again, apples and oranges. Yes, Fight club is violent and agressive as all hell but the characters in that movie used violence for escaping their "pathetic" lives, it gave them purpose... It was a reflection on how miserable people can get in a modern society. That's subversive!
To be fair, Kick-Ass is very well and expertly made. Director Matthew Vaughn (Layer cake and Stardust) takes advantage of the limited budget in the best possible way. The movie looks great, has some effective action sequences. No problem with the acting, either. Chloe Moretz for all intents and purposes steals the movie and Nicolas Cage continues his sort of come-back that began with Bad lieutenant:Port of call New Orleans.
All that would be fine if the movie went for something more than just senseless violence just for the sake of being cool. I know that I'm in the minority here and I'm sure that a lot of people are tell me that I should lighten up and not take this too seriously. And that's fine, everyone has the right to interpret a movie in any way they see fit. Me, I just can't watch a child being beaten senseless or someone being burned alive and call it "entertainment" And if that makes me not hip and uncool... I'm proud to be not hip and uncool

Tasty cheese

Dear John is a typical adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel. It's sappy, manipulative, it has every single element of every single Nicholas Sparks adaptation that came before: a chance meeting of two lovers to be, a love scene in crappy weather conditions, a family member with a disability and of course, the obligatory... Well, you get the idea. And yet despite myself, I kinda liked this movie.
The story follows John (Channing Tatum ) and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried)who meet in the summer of 2001 and start a romance. Savannah is a college student and John is soldier in the American Special Forces. During their summer fling they spend time surfing, building a house, eating dinner with John's slightly autistic father (Richard Jenkins) and hanging out with the next door neighbor (Henry Thomas) and his son who is also... autistic (I know, I know). Alas, the romance only lasts for two weeks. Savannah has to go back to school and John has to go away on a mission. They promise to write to each other all the time and pretty much the rest of the movie we follow their letters (not e-mails, LETTERS) going back and forth...
The movie was directed by Lasse Hallstrom, a guy who specializes in sugarcoating stories that perhaps have a realistic Americana basis but always play out in a way that doesn't upset the audience too much. He did it in The cider house rules, An unfinished life and he does it here. Dear John is a movie that's on a clear mission. To make teenage girls cry and and everyone else not think too much for 107 minutes. It knows exactly what it is and what's it going for. And somehow, I can't fault it for that. Because what it does, it does well.
But the main reason why this movie worked for me are Channing Tatum and Amanda Seyfried. They're both charming here, make an appealing screen couple and make the whole movie better than it has any right to be...
I've had mixed feelings about Nicholas Sparks adaptations in the past. I liked The notebook and A walk to remember a lot but hated Message in a bottle and Nights in Rodanthe. Dear John falls somewhere in between.. Yes it's predictable and sappy as hell and it'll probably only surprise young teens who see about one movie a year. But thanks to Tatum and Seyfried, it has a central couple we actually want to root for. Also, I can see how young girls can make Dear John their favorite movie.
At the end of the day, Dear John is pure cheese on a stick. But every once in a while, you know what I'm in the mood for? Cheese on a stick.

A HIDDEN GEM

I've had an interesting day yesterday. I've attended a literature and film class where among other things, the topic of the day was Alfonso Cuaron's adaptation of Great expectations. I first saw this movie when it first came out in '98 and remember being absolutely blown away by it. It was the first movie along with Pulp fiction and The godfather that taught me that there's more to movies than just John Rambo, Dirty Harry and John McClain. In short, it showed me that film is an art form.
Mind you, at that time I didn't have a clue who Charles Dickens was and I enjoyed it strictly as a movie, without the burden of comparing it to the original novel. As faith would have it, I recently finished the novel for the first time and was really looking forward to revisiting Cuaron's movie and seeing how it holds up. Personally, I think it holds up beautifully. I was also interested in what other people thought about it. Then I realized that I'm about the only person on the planet who loves this movie.
I'm going to say a few things about why I believe Great expectations to be an extremely underrated movie why it deserves a lot more attention. I cannot stress the word movie enough. Whether it's a good adaptation of the novel is another story and I'll try to get into that a bit as well. In order to properly say what I have to say, I'm going to have to spoil a crucial plotpoint the movie and the novel.
This is a modernized story of a boy named Finn (changed from Pip) who at the beginning of the film runs across an escaped convict hiding in the marshes (Robert De Niro) and ends up bringing him food and helps him evade the police. Finn is raised by his sister Maggie (Kim Dickens) and her fisherman husband, Joe (Chris Cooper). One day, Finn is summoned to a large near by estate occupied by a (to put it mildly) eccentric old woman (Anne Bancroft) and her niece Estella. Finn spends every saturday with the two of them and becomes more and more enchanted by Estella who was taught by her aunt to be cruel to men. Finn grows up to be a painter (and becomes Ethan Hawke) and when he discovers that Estella is gone to school abroad is left heartbroken. However, his life changes when he is told that an anonymous benefactor is sponsoring Finn's first art show in New York. Finn is dragged into a world of art and money and thinks he has everything he could ever dream of. Until he again meets Estella (now played by Gwyneth Paltrow)...
Just from a visual standpoint this is a stunning movie. Director Cuaron, cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and composer Patrick Doyle have created a feast for the eyes and ears. Everything from the marshes of Florida, the estate to the art world of New York oozes with life. It is simply impossible to take our eyes of it. We get a very strong sense of place and atmosphere throughout which helps to get a better sense of Finn's journey through different stages of his life. Individual scenes are paintings within themselves and could be put on a wall. Wonderful stuff
Since the film came out, there has been some controversy over the casting of Ethan Hawke in the lead role. Some people just couldn't see him as an artist and romantic lead. Now, I will admit that the weakest part of the movie for me are Finn and Estella's teenage years. Paltrow pulls it off wonderfully but somehow, Hawke (who was almost 30 at the time) looks silly as a lovestruck teen. However, when Finn gets to New York, Hawke completely won me over. The art world of New York is a natural habitat for Finn. He's more at home there than he ever was in Florida. He becomes more sure of himself, there is a very clear transformation in his character and for me, Hawke plays it beautifully. However, the real star of the movie is Gwyneth Paltrow as Estella. Paltrow perfectly switches emotions from being kind and warm to Finn to being ice cold."What's it like not to feel anything?", asks Finn. The supporting cast of De Niro, Bancroft, Cooper, Hank Azaria all do a fine job.
I have to be fair and say that I do understand why people dislike this movie so much, especially fans of the novel. This is a VERY loose adaptation. The main idea of the novel is Pip's (the main character's name) dealing with the society that surrounds him. His relationship with Estella is just one of many subplots. Alfonso Cuaron rather chose to focus on the Finn-Estella relationship and thus leaves out many of the novels characters and other plot points. Could he have made a more literal adaptation, regardless of time and setting? Probably, but he didn't choose to make THAT movie but he chose to do THIS one.
Another major controversy about the movie is its dealing with the discovery of sexuality. In an infamous scene 10 year-old Finn and Estella share a French kiss. Needless to say this wasn't in the novel or any other movie or TV adaptation. However, I feel that this is one of the key elements of the movie. If the main idea of the story "journey into manhood", then sex has to be a part of it. Because let's be honest, discovering sexuality is a part of every child's growing up. And Cuaron is perfectly aware of that, even at the risk of alienating his audience.
There is a general consensus that the weakest part of this movie is the relationship between Finn and the escaped convict. Near the end, the convict re-appears in Finn's life and tells him that he is the mysterious benefactor who made everything possible for Finn, due to Finn's kindness as a child. When this discovery is made in the novel, a very tender relationship between Pip/Finn and the convict is created which for some people is missing from Cuaron's movie. My take on it: There is a clear difference in the main reveal between the novel and Cuaron's movie which allows the relationship between the two men to play out differently. In the novel, the convict tells the truth right away, so it is natural for Pip/Finn to have an emotional response. In the movie, the convict tells the truth to Finn right before he dies, so before that, Finn is (again, very naturally) scared and wants to get rid of him and there is no time for an emotional connection. BUT , after the convict is killed by members of the Mafia on the subway train(Yes, I admit, silly) and confesses everything to Finn, Finn stays with him on the train, riding all night and very clearly contemplating the realization. Just because the emotion isn't spoken, doesn't mean it's not there.
I understand that for most people the definitive adaptation of Great expectations is by David Lean from 1946 and if you're looking for a more closer adaptation, that's your movie. But somehow, this one connected more to me personally and like I've already mentioned, some individual scene are some of the most gorgeous I've ever seen and will haunt me forever.
But that's just me...

Side note: My thanks to professor Robert Sullivan, Gaj Tomaš, Anđela Mihaljević and everyone else who gave me ideas yesterday and inspired me to study this movie again and write this silly text.

The music played while this text was being written

The big BAD wolf. Literally

I have to admit that I had been looking forward to The wolfman for quite some time now. I'm a huge fan of the classic monster movie and a re-imagining of The wolfman seemed like great idea because it's been a while since we had a good, bloody gorefest of a monster movie and it was a chance to bring back the innocence that those kinds of movies had in the early days of Hollywood. By "innocence" I mean that they were fast-paced, had high entertainment value and scared the living shit out of people. Now, how does the latest version of The wolfman compare to its ancestors? Well...(sigh)
I was perfectly aware of the behind-the-scenes problems this movie had: the original director Mark Romanek left the project at the eleventh hour due to "creative differences" and was replaced by Joe Johnston (the underrated Jurrasic park III, the upcoming Captain America). The release date was pushed back several times, composer Danny Elfman left the project and then came back again, there was a possibility the rating would be PG-13, there were re-shoots, reports of two different endings and the list goes on and on... But that doesn't necessarily mean the movie would suck, right? I mean, James Cameron went way over-budget and exceeded the filming schedule on Titanic and look what happened. Right? Don't know if the behind-the- scenes shenanigans are to blame but The wolfman does a few things right and many, MANY things wrong...
In the past you could at least depend on bad movies looking like crap. Not anymore. The wolfman is visually one of the best bad movies I've ever seen. The cinematography captures the creepy mood of 19-century English countryside beautifully. The woods are threatening , just as they should be, the candle-lit interiors, not to mention Rick Baker's wonderful make-up design... Unfortunately, the movie falls flat on every other aspect.
The story follows Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro), a Shakespearean actor (I'm not shitting you) who comes back to his father's country estate after years of absence. Apparently Lawrence's brother had been killed by some sort of wild beast and Lawrence intends to find out what exactly happened, much to the disdain of his estranged father, Sir John (Anthony Hopkins). He also meets his late brother's fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt) and the two take a liking to each other. While trying to find out how who or what killed his brother, Lawrence is also attacked and as a result starts turning into a werewolf, an out of control beast that rips the guts out everyone who gets in its way. And in the process Lawrence learns that he's a chip off the ol' block in more ways than one.
For the first half hour I was really into this movie. The jump scares are effective (I hate those), blood and guts are flying all over, the pacing is good.... Alas, the 70 minutes that follow are an unholy mess. For some reason after Lawrence is attacked the movie takes a nose dive. The pacing becomes much slower, the plot jumps from scene to scene without any explanation. Minor spoiler: After his very first transformation, Lawrence ends up in a mental institution and it happens so quickly that it doesn't allow the character to properly understand and come to terms with what has happened with him. And scenes like this are many. Continuity is not one of this movie's strong suits either. Case in point: Are we really supposed to accept that Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins are father and son?! Lawrence is English but apparently after moving to America he acquired a perfect American accent and not only that, he became Portorican. Which brings us to the most dissapointing aspect: the performances
At first glance Benicio Del Toro is the perfect choice to play The wolfman. He has an ability as an actor to play tortured characters beautifully (he won an Oscar doing it in Traffic), and he can also be menacing. But playing and English nobleman/Shakespearean actor... That he cannot do. He's amazingly unconvincing and basically sleeps through his respective role.
Anthony Hopkins on the other hand chews his way through the movie and that would be fun if not for the unexplainable change in the character's not only behavior but also physical appearance. The first half of the movie he walks around in his bathrobe with his hair going in 10 different directions, acting like a mad man. But in the second half he changes completely, wearing respectable clothes, talking more calmly, ect. Go figure...
Emily Blunt ... I don't even know what to write here. Her character is so bland and worthless that if she wasn't in the movie, it wouldn't be noticed. Sure she plays an important role in the end but too little too late
The only one who seems to be accepting the tone this movie ought to be going for is Hugo Weaving as a Scotland Yard inspector investigating the gruesome murders. He's funny, has witty dialogue and is a joy to watch while everyone else plays it so seriously.
Like I've already mentioned, the movie has its fair share of fun bloodshed and effective scares, Gollum-looking creatures but between all that are endless awfully paced scenes of dramatic dialogue, Benicio Del Toro looking bored, creature effects looking organic and convincing one moment but looking like bad CGI the next, bunch of scenes explaining everything, stupid decisions, situations that defy reasoning (Moonlight is blasting away but the transformation is delayed just so two characters can have a conversation),ect, ect. And there's the surprise twist which is completely useless and its only purpose is to have Minor spoiler, two CGI creatures fight it out by a blazzing fire. But the most insulting plot point is giving The wolfman emotions. The main difference between The wolfman and other classic movie monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein is that The wolfman has no personality and is a pure beast. Giving him emotions... NO NO NO!!
If it weren't for a special lady on my left, one of my best friends on my right and his better half two seats from me, this thing would be much harder to endure. It should serve as an example how bad editing can ruin a movie
See the 1941, 69 minute original instead.

Dancing in the dark

How the fuck do you screw up a movie called NINJA ASSASSIN?! I mean, how hard is it to make a movie called NINJA ASSASSIN?! All you need is a ninja and all he has to do is, well... assassinate people. You don't have to bother with that pesky thing called "a plot", and you sure as hell don't need character development. You just put the ninja in a simple situation where he gets to chop people's limbs up real good. The problem with NINJA ASSASSIN (or should I say, one of its problems) is that it has way too much plot, not to mention character development...
The story follows Raizo (South Korean pop singer, dancer, model, actor, businessperson, and designer, Rain), a ninja who used to be a member of a secret ninja clan that trains assassins from early childhood. After seeing his sweetheart slain in front of him, Raizo starts questioning the clan's methods and after his first assignment goes rogue. He meets a Europol agent (Naomi Harris)investigating the clan's activities and together they try to escape the vindictive clan. Oh, did I mention the clan has supernatural powers? (sigh)...
Like I said, nobody expects a movie like this to be anything more than dumb, brainless time waster. As long as it delivers on the action department, I'm OK and it makes everything else about it less painful to endure. Unfortunately, this movie is a dead zone in pretty much every aspect.
Let's start with the action sequences, shall we? Director James McTeigue (V for vendetta, first assistant director on The matrix trilogy) shoots almost every single fight sequence in the dark, preventing us from truly enjoying the undeniable craftsmanship of the stuntmen and Rain himself but everything is impossible to follow and frustrates the hell out of us. Which leads me to the movie's next problem. The obvious reasoning for this way of shooting is an attempt to conceal the horrible CGI. The movie is rated R for blood, guts, ect. and one would expect a movie called NINJA ASSASSIN to deliver the goods. And while the movie has its fair share of bloodshed, it's all FUCKING CGI!. And lousy CGI at that. In this day in age where filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino actually make an effort to give violence a cerebral feel, there's no excuse for McTeigue taking the easy way out.
Then there's Rain. I'm sorry, the man may look the part and be an expert in 15 different martial arts techniques but he's a godawful actor. He says every line with the conviction of a mannequin with an inserted voice chip. Granted, he looks good when he shuts up and chops up people's limbs off but every time he opens his mouth I wanted to do something violent to the screen. Oh wait, it doesn't matter how he looks in the fight sequences because WE CAN'T SEE ANYTHING!.
But the biggest sin this movie commits is that it's boring (How's that for film criticism?). Between the poorly executed fight sequences were forced to endure bad dialogue, Rain's moping over his faith and dead girlfriend (the endless flashbacks don't help), ill-fated attempts at creating a serious story with a message how we're all masters of our own faith (again, sigh). But all that would be forgiven if the fight sequences deliver. But they don't. NINJA ASSASSIN (yes, I'm doing this on purpose) is a huge bust on every level and the sooner it winds up in oblivion, the better.
How hard, how hard?!

He aint heavy, he's my brother.

Brothers tells the the story of Sam (Tobey Maguire) and Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal), two brothers who couldn't be more different. Sam is a U.S. Army Captain about to leave for Afghanistan. He is married to Grace (Natalie Portman) and they have two beautiful little girls. Tommy, on the other hand is the family fuck up. He just got out of prison for doing something which is never explained and he is a borderline alcoholic. Despite all that, the two brothers love each other very much and would do anything for each other.

Unfortunately, Grace receives the news of Sam's death in Afghanistan. Realizing he's left without the only person who gave a damn about him, Tommy practically moves in takes care of Grace and becomes a father figure to the girls.

Now, it isn't much of a spoiler when I say that it turns out Sam isn't actually dead (It's in the trailer) and he comes back to find that the relationship between Tommy and Grace may have blossomed into something deeper...

Based on the Danish film by the same name, Brothers was directed by Jim Sheridan who is a master at dealing with complex family relationships. With films like In the name of the father, The boxer, My left foot and my personal favorite of his, In America, Sheridan proved he understands how families work. He knows the manerisms, how people talk to each other, gets the emotions. So what happened with Brothers?

The biggest problem with this film is that it feels very scripted and fake. In order for a film like this to work, you need give the audience something to relate to, so that when they see it they feel that the situation presented to them is possible in the real world.Brothers tries VERY hard to achieve that but feels bogus pretty much every step of the way.

There are a number of scenes which are a retread of other films. There's the hard ass father (Sam Shepard) who idolizes Sam but can't stand the sight of Tommy. There's the obligatory montage of Tommy, Grace and the girls bonding during an ice skating session. There's the obligatory scene where Sam starts acting like a mad man during a family dinner because hey... He has PTSP. In short, you can see everything coming a mile away and the characters act a certain simply because the script demands it.

Another problem is that at a petty short 100 minutes Brothers wastes time on scenes like Sam in a P.O.W. camp where he is forced to do something terrible to survive. Stuff like this seems very out of place and as a result the scenes after Sam gets home and has to confront Tommy and Grace are rushed and aren't fleshed out very well. Why? The movie has to be over.

Just about the only thing saving this thing from pure boredom are terrific performances by the three leads.

Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal and (especially) Natalie Portman give it their all in a script unworthy of their talent. They really inhabit their characters and despite the before mentioned contrived plot devices of the script do the best they can and in individual scenes succeed very well.

At the end of the day, Brothers is a major disappointment that could have and should have been a great movie but ended up a bit above a standard Hallmark drama.

Because of the performances it may be an OK rental on a Sunday night or when you can’t sleep and you come across it while channel surfing on cable. In the meantime save your money or hard disk space.

Btw, did anybody notice this plot device was used once before in Pearl harbor…?

This is NOT just a man's world

"The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug"

These words sump up The hurt locker, director Kathryn Bigelow's masterful take on the Iraq war and the emotional burden it inflicts on the people who have to go through every day risking their lives for something they may not understand but it's the only thing they know.
The film follows Sergeant First Class Will James (Jeremy Renner) who becomes the leader of an Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit with the U.S. Army's Bravo Company. James is very good at what he does. In fact, during his rotation in Iraq in disarmed 873 bombs. However, he's also a junkie. He's addicted to his job and will stop at nothing to complete it, even take of fhis suit because if he's gonna die, he wants to die comfortably. But however capable James is on the field, simple things like buying a box of cereal for his infant son becomes a terrible ordeal.
War as a drug is at the center of this story and Kathryn Bigelow filles every single scene with gut wrenching intensity which shows just how much James really enjoys what he does. Of course, much of this also credit to Jeremy Renner whose performance is surely to get a Best actor nomination.
Next to being a fascinating psychological study, The hurt locker is also one of the best action movies in recent memory. Bigelow, a veteran when it comes to depicting realistic action sequences relies on practical effects and her camera work to suck us into. a world where a little boy becomes a dangerous weapon. One of my favorite movies which she did a similar thing is Point break which has the best foot chase ever filmed. Here she films every set piece virtually without any music and allows silence to create the atmosphere. This especially comes into play in what is possibly the best sniper shoot-out I've ever seen.
The thing that I loved the most about his film is that the enemy is practically invisible or "not human" The enemies are the bombs, the enemy is James against himself. The enemy in the sniper shoot-out is hidden in the desert landscape.
The hurt locker is a perfect example that it is possible to make a movie that is thought-provoking and disturbing but has unbeliveably intense scenes which are up there with the best straight out action movies. It is a near masterpiece and one of the best war films ever made. When people want to see a realistic portrail of what it's like to be in the middle of a hell that is war, they will turn to The hurt locker.
To conclude, I wanna say that I'm really proud (sappy as it sounds) of Kathryn Bigelow. In a genre that belongs to the Michael Bays and the Roland Emmerichs and in the year that gave us junk like Transformers: revenge of the Fallen, Terminator salvation and X-men origins: Wolverine, she's the one who delivered the the most intense film of the year and not only did she do it without any CGI, she once again (as she did with Point break) proves that A-list Hollywood is not just a man's world.