I'm tired enough to start unwrapping (extremely uncoherent) thoughts about a movie. So, I've decided for a short and "fast-writable" subject: "Lockout".
The story is something quite close to Carpenter's "Escape from N.Y." or "Escape from L.A.". A guy (Guy Pearce) named Snow (I wonder if there is an intention for a similarity with Snake played by Kurt Russell in the above "Escapes"), gets sort of framed for the failure of a mission. The context is not very clear but what's essential is that the mission was coordinated by the U.S. secret services. The result of all this = he gets sent to the highest security prison on the planet. Or more exactly on the orbit (the action takes place in space). The problem = at the same time the daughter of the U.S. president visits that location, and the convicts take over the facility. The consequence = Snow gets an option to escape the jail if he manages to do this along the mentioned girl. The offer is accepted, especially since the answer to his trouble is held by another convict he could look for in the process. So, that's the subject of the movie .. or the intro ;) to be exact.
The movie is part of the bunch of "Luc Besson presents ..." - to be read: produced by the guy's studio - Europa (like "Taken", "Taxi", "Transporter", etc). Although in general you don't see too much spent in these productions, the result is still decent in terms of an action movie. In this case though, we clearly have a B-series movie. You can spot this from the first scenes where you have some pretty lame FX. The movie isn't a really bad one, but you have to remember the range where it fits when you watch it. The script is quite predictable and a bit stupid unfortunately, so the range is somewhere close to action movies to see before going to sleep (= B series, light, 0 level of mind provoking). There is though a sort of good part in the script, which starts with what you can see below and continues with other lines of the main character that try to sound witty. Sometimes they succeed. But in the rest of times ...
I'm not in a very good writing mood. But I promised last time that I'll return with a good movie. And since there are already around three weeks since I've seen "Moonrise Kingdom", maybe it's the case to make an entry about it until my memory loses it completely.
The movie is a comedy. A pretty particular one as style. I guess it's something specific for Wes Anderson (the director) although I've only seen "Fantastic Mr. Fox" as another title on which he worked on. Actually .. if I remember well I've also seen "The Life Aquatic", but it was too long ago to remember more than it didn't impress me at all. Coming back to the current movie, and leaving the style analysis for later, the subject is set somewhere on a 3-digits number population island, close to the NE U.S. coast, and the time is somewhere in the '60s. As main characters we have two children, a boy and a girl around 12 years old. He is an orphan sent by the foster family in scouts camp (where his colleagues do not accept him very well), she is a bit out of her age's normality (sufficiently to be "cast out" of the "normality" of her family). What results from all this context is a sort of infantile "love story" manifested through a run of the two kids "far from the surrounding mean world". Where "far" = in the island woods, in a moment when a hurricane is coming and it's about to sweep everything in its pathway. All this situation alarms the parents of the girl (Bill Murray & Frances McDormand), the local sheriff (Bruce Willis) and the scout camp's chief master scout (Edward Norton). I'll leave the viewer to discover what happens next + the rest of the details and I'll get back to the style ..
If you've seen "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" and you liked it, you'll probably like also "Moonrise Kingdom". In my opinion is a bit lower as level. But is the same combination of dry but styled context and situation humor, which is somehow also warm - at least if you're watching the whole ensemble. It is something totally different from a normal comedy (like "Ted" or "Horrible Bosses" which come into my mind now, and on which I laughed sufficiently enough, but also which are in a completely different subgenre). In a way Wes Anderson looks to me quite close to Alexander Payne ("Sideways", "The Descendants") but with less drama. And also maybe a bit .. weird in some parts. For instance, in the current case, there are a couple of scenes which may seem taken a bit too far given the exact precised young age of the characters. This may have been avoided (and result in something as good as a final product and a larger appreciation from the public, especially if you give a look at the IMDb boards ..). But, if you have some brain to get, eyes to see and ears to hear the rest of the 95% of the film .. you realize that the small pieces don't matter that much ...
Talking about eyes and ears, let me close with the cinematography + the soundtrack. You have an opening scene that tells you clearly that what follows is not average stuff. And I actually can say that's the best technically worked movie that I've seen this year. It doesn't make sense to describe in words how the visual frames are composed. If you have some leaning at least towards photography, than what's being served to you visually really deserves to keep your eyes wide open. Is not about the effects, nor the location setting. Is just a demonstration of how nice a movie taking place in a normal setting can be done. The cinematographer (Robert Yeoman) is totally unknown for me, but I have to remember him for the future. The soundtrack managed to change my opinion on Alexandre Desplat as an overrated composer. I'll resume only at saying that it's probably his best soundtrack I've heard up to this moment, and I'll pass to clips that should be more eloquent than my blah-blah.
I'll start the second part of the preview entry with "Oz: The Great and Powerful", scheduled for release next March. It's a prequel to the classic story, and despite looking like a Tim Burton movie from what you can see in the trailer, it isn't one (fortunately, if we look at "Alice" as an example, a pretty uninspired choice mentioned as reference by the producers). The directing belongs to Sam Raimi (the "Spiderman" trilogy, the "Evil Dead" trilogy, etc), thing that gives some hopes.
I liked the first "G.I. Joe" despite the reviews at the time. At least it had a story slightly more complex than the usual superhero movie (in the end it's not a superhero movie .. but you could still apply the comparison). The sequel, delayed by one year, seems though to be a potential disaster if we take a look at the director's CV ... "Step Up 2", "Step Up 3D", "League of Extraordinary Dancers" ... I'd better stop here, although there's more ... But we have Bruce Willis. And Adrianne Palicki in the red dress ;)
I'm closing March with "The Host". The only reason for adding this title to the list is the directing by Andrew Niccol who pleasantly surprised me not that long ago with "In Time" (although "Gattaca", considered a classic, for me was just plain boring). It probably matter more though that the movie is adapted from another "successful" novel by Stephenie Meyer ("Twilight" in case it doesn't ring a bell, and it's enough said).
There aren't many trailers released for the next April. So I'll come with an anti-recommendation ("backed-up" anyway further below also by the trailer - rated R). I was mentioning somewhere before "Evil Dead" by Sam Raimi. For who likes horrors is impossible not to know about it. Well, the remake is going to be released next year ... What's new in it ? No Ash, apparently. Again, who knows what I'm talking about, I guess agrees with me that "Evil Dead" without Bruce Campbell as Ash is hard to conceive .. but without Ash as main character is already a blasphemy. Even worse is that Bruce Campbell promoted this, being also a producer ($, $ .. and again $). The only thing left to hope for, is that what you can see below is 0 compared to the final version - in terms of subject, feeling, etc. Unfortunately the only horror I know that managed to change the impression of the trailer in the last years was "The Cabin in the Woods". And I don't know why but my feeling is this one does not intend at all to do something similar.
Unfortunately we don't have yet a trailer for the following "Star Trek" which is top of the list from what I expect to come out next year, so I'll wrap up more quickly the today preview with "Iron Man 3". Release date in May. I assume that's known (at least by who looks from time to time at my posts), what opinion I have on super-hero movies. It doesn't differ in this particular case. It looks like "yet another one" following the classic story. However, again for the today entry, I have to refer to directing, which is different from the first two parts. This time is by a screenwriter - Shane Black (who of course is also the author of the script). Maybe the name doesn't say much, so I should give some reference - "Lethal Weapon" entire series, "The Long Kiss Goodnight", "The Last Boy Scout", "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Last Action Hero". If it's not clear yet, check the titles on IMDb ;)
Somehow I've managed again to sync the lack of watched movies with the end of the Fall = just perfect for the usual entry in this time of year. So, let's get straight to the point with some December releases.
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is the prequel to "The Lord of the Rings". Directed also by Peter Jackson, having the same production team, the same screenwriters .. should sound promising, right ? Well, not for me, simply because "The Hobbit" is a children's book, relatively short, infinitely less complex than "Lord of the Rings" ... but this alone still wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that this was supposed to be the first part of two. I think this was already exaggerated as length, but now it looks even worse, they want another trilogy ! For a book which if I remember well is shorter than any of the three in LotR. "The Fellowship of the Ring" is for me somewhere up high in the top of all movies ever watched (partially subjective) and one of the best adaptations for the screen from a book (yes, even better than "Return of the King" which is excessively lengthened in the end). Unfortunately I can't see how "The Hobbit" in three parts could get at least up the level of "The Two Towers" which is a book a bit harder to adapt considering the action threads, and still the result was decent. Conclusion: I'm afraid that everything is about $ .. and since more movies mean more $ .....
Since we're close to the adapting topic, another title with a box-office potential for the end of the year is "Jack Reacher". Here I can't say much because I have no idea what is in the book which seems to be actually a series of crime novels having the above mentioned as main character. The part that might deserve some attention is the director and screenwriter of the movie: Cristopher McQuarrie who after the success with "The Usual Suspects" from long ago was also involved in "Valkyrie" or "The Tourist" more recently. Well .. none shined, but anyway both were above the usual mindless Hollywoodish action.
For the end of December we have the final production made by Tarantino. Maybe I'm a bit too skeptic today but for some reason Jamie Foxx doesn't look very convincing as lead character in the trailer of "Django Unchained". We'll see ...
Since it's been a while from my last reference to a real horror, I'll stop to "Mama" for the beginning of January 2013. I think the trailer says enough. And for who tastes the genre, it seems that somewhere online there's also a short movie on which this one is based upon ;)
I didn't see yet the second part of "Expendables", but from what I've heard it shows that Schwarzenegger took a long break from acting (not that we're speaking of Oscar material anyway). Despite all these "The Last Stand" for me looks more fun than Tarantino's production from above (maybe I'm subjective, and I still have my childhood marked by "Terminator 2", "Total Recall", "Predator" and others :) ). To top this the direction belongs to a Korean - Jee-woon Kim - from whose movies I didn't see any, but I have four or five on my "to watch list" (all having a rating bigger than 7 on IMDb).
Sometime long long ago we had a Lee Marvin pissed off by being betrayed and left in a pool of blood by his partners in crime. More recently, but still more than 10 years ago, Mel Gibson was getting the same treatment in the remake. Both of their names were Porter (as a side note somewhere meanwhile Chow-Yun Fat was getting into the same troubles in a Hong Kong made production). Well, it seems that the character's name is actually "Parker" and I found out that he's also the lead in a book, or again more exactly a series of crime novels - more or less good. Even if the story somehow is able to catch your attention (like a sort of condensed and energized Monte Cristo) I still think I'll prefer the Gibson's Porter version to a "yet another Jason Statham movie" coming out at the end of January.
In February we have a sort of mix between a light horror, comedy and romance - "Warm Bodies". As a reference, the movie has the same director as "50/50". And even given that I'm not really into the last two of the above, I don't know why but from all the premieres in this entry it seems this one is the most promising :)
After Schwarzenegger, we have an entry with Stallone (and the third "action hero" comes immediately below). Actually the reason why I'm bringing into discussion "Bullet to the Head" is that it's the first movie directed by Walter Hill since 2002 (in case it sounds a bit cryptic make a name check on IMDb). Unfortunately, what's below doesn't seem that promising ...
To complete the list, I'm closing February with the fifth episode of Bruce Willis' life as John McClane in "A Good Day to Die Hard". Somehow the impression given by the trailer is the opposite to the previous title. On the other hand the directing is also on the other side of the balance ... ("Max Payne" should be enough as reference)
Wanted: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed
This is written on the poster :) In case it wasn't visible enough. And it represents a classified ad from '97 published in a bi-monthly US magazine targeting mainly .. life on a farm, around the farm, etc. For real. Meaning that's what really happened + an P.O. Box address that I didn't reproduce. What's not that real is the part with "This is not a joke". Actually it is a joke, and you can find the complete story here: The time-travel ad . To put it short, the editor needed something to fill up the page. Of course, the conspiracy theory says that's just a late cover-up excuse :) especially given the context in which that ad cause a lot of online activity at the time and after with responses, investigations, theories, other following ads, and so on. I remember that I stumbled into this a while ago (before the author's explanation) and I lost I think something like 30 minutes surfing from link to link and getting more and more amazed up to what something like this can go (+ I caught some other publicly made "time travel" tracks, with a trust degree ranging from "hmmm..." up to "this is laaame"). I never thought though that the ad will generate also a movie script. And I have to say it now that this wasn't bad at all to happen ...
The movie is an indie with not too many actors, and surprisingly for the budget also featuring some nice effects on the ending. It starts with the idea of investigating the above ad. The inquiry is lead by a journalist, who is more interested in finding his high school girlfriend, who by chance lives in the same city with the ad author. Consequently, the job is actually done mostly by two interns, freshly college graduates - an Indian with a classic geek/nerd profile and a girl a bit too fed up with the everyday life. Actually the job is done mostly by the last of them, who seems the only one able to successfully interact with the ad author. Author, who in the movie is a measly supermarket employee, apparently having some mental issues, but possessing a big hangar, lots of spare parts and a time machine made of these + an even bigger ambition to travel into the past. Well, there is more to say from the subject but I don't want to spoil something that can be a very pleasant hour and a half in front of a screen.
Essentially the movie is a comedy, that gets also a bit into romance from a point onwards (reaching up to some scenes which were a bit too corny at least for me). And obviously we can't ignore the "SF" = the time machine. Without getting into spoilers about this, something deserves a note: if you're carefully watching the action flow you'll have a way to explain yourself the "I have only done this once before" part ;) in case you'll feel the need to. And you might feel the need to if after the ending you'll read again the ad :)
Posts
