I’m sick this week, which, as many people in my office can attest, makes me whiny. All I really want to do is curl up in a corner with my pink blankie, watch bad tv, and complain. I have the attention span and thought retention of a dishrag. But my mom raised me with the idea that if you go to school (or work) all week, you can go out on the weekends.
So off to the movies I went. What’s better than a whole bottle of Theraflu and a brand new box of Puffs Plus with Lotion? “The Expendables”!
The road to this showing was paved with good intentions but mixed with roadblocks. After buying tickets for an early show, I headed off to the bookstore, where I became absorbed by various reading materials, only to notice that it was 1:05 and my show started at 1:10. But I was sure that the crowd wouldn’t be that bad, and it wouldn’t be a problem - until I discovered that the theater (as small as it was) was already full.
Off to guest services…to exchange my tickets for a showing 30 minutes later. REFUSING to miss anything this time, I settle in at the benches by the theater. After ten minutes, I go in early and see a sign telling me LINE STARTS HERE. I’m the third person in line, only to find people bypassing the line and just entering the theater. (People like that piss me off!)
Wondering if the Cinematic Gods are hating me, I go in to a much bigger, mostly empty auditorium. But my bad mood seems to evaporate as the film starts (after what seems like dozens of trailers).
“The Expendables” was one of the summer movies that I most anticipated. Who wouldn’t love the cast? It’s a who’s who of action movies – current and past. I expected it to be one of those films where you buy your nachos and soda, sit down, suspend belief, and just go with the lack of a story.
Surprisingly enough, though, it’s much more.
I expected action, which I got in spades. The only thing missing was a body count ticker in the lower right (which REALLY should be on the DVD). There’s lots of blood, but refreshingly enough there isn’t any nudity or profanity. The film doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is always a plus. The one-liners fly almost as fast as the bullets. I had forgotten that Stallone has been Oscar-nominated for a screenplay. I laughed often. Even the cameos are used to the fullest extent. I had an absolute blast.
The only down side is that the choreography isn’t quite as good as it could be. Although the fights are dispersed between the stars, it’s sometimes hard to identify the participants. But I can forgive that.
Maybe next time I’m sick, instead of going to the closest corner, I’ll go to the nearest cineplex – right after I go to the pharmacy.
8/11/2010
Date Night - Don't Save this Date!
Tina Fey is the funniest woman on the planet, bar none. She’s also one of the smartest women in the business – a rare gem that isn’t afraid to show her intelligence, but isn’t afraid to dumb it down either, when needed.
But she’s funnier when she writes the words that she speaks. Unfortunately, that’s not the case in her latest effort - “Date Night”.
“Date Night” is about two people who have been married forever. You know the type. You don’t really talk anymore, unless it is to catalog a never ending to-do list. You live your life in sequential order – get awakened by the kids, send them to school, go to work, come home, have dinner, homework, kids bed, you bed. Rinse, lather, and repeat. To combat the unavoidable ennui in their lives, they do the same thing a lot of suburban couples do – they instituted “Date Night”. This means they go to the local cineplex and then their favorite steakhouse. They pick out patrons and construct their stories (the most charm of the movie). But unfortunately even that is repetitive.
Repetition is really the core of this movie. It turns into boredom. There’s a reason the run time is under 90 minutes. Were there a few chuckles? Sure. But these came usually when the two actors (Fey and Steve Carrell, hit or miss in general and missing most of the time here) are standing still, just talking. My favorite scene was at an expensive trendy restaurant as they try to get a phone number. They decide to change their appearance. Fey suddenly morphs into Parker Posey and Carrell just looks stupid.
The supporting cast is filled with famous actors doing bit parts – I’m sure you’ve already read about this. The most notable are James Franco playing a degenerate and Mark Wahlberg, playing a shirtless fantasy object. But to me that’s not really entertaining – that’s just actors having a laugh, amusing themselves more than me.
Personally, I like the rinse, lather and repeat. I like knowing what’s coming down the pike (or most of it anyway). But there’s something to also be said for the happy medium. My recent excursion to Atlantic City taught me that I do like to get out and have fun. Things don’t always have to be scheduled. Short notice isn’t necessarily bad. Staying at home all the time, although more affordable and in this heat, more comfortable, is fun sometimes – but not all the time. So, although I like my MANY routines, there’s nothing wrong with changing it up from time to time.
It just would have been nice if the screenwriters would have thought the same. When you have two of the funniest people in comedy tag teaming a film, it should have been better than this. Maybe Tina Fey should have hired the writers herself – or they should have hired her to write it.
But she’s funnier when she writes the words that she speaks. Unfortunately, that’s not the case in her latest effort - “Date Night”.
“Date Night” is about two people who have been married forever. You know the type. You don’t really talk anymore, unless it is to catalog a never ending to-do list. You live your life in sequential order – get awakened by the kids, send them to school, go to work, come home, have dinner, homework, kids bed, you bed. Rinse, lather, and repeat. To combat the unavoidable ennui in their lives, they do the same thing a lot of suburban couples do – they instituted “Date Night”. This means they go to the local cineplex and then their favorite steakhouse. They pick out patrons and construct their stories (the most charm of the movie). But unfortunately even that is repetitive.
Repetition is really the core of this movie. It turns into boredom. There’s a reason the run time is under 90 minutes. Were there a few chuckles? Sure. But these came usually when the two actors (Fey and Steve Carrell, hit or miss in general and missing most of the time here) are standing still, just talking. My favorite scene was at an expensive trendy restaurant as they try to get a phone number. They decide to change their appearance. Fey suddenly morphs into Parker Posey and Carrell just looks stupid.
The supporting cast is filled with famous actors doing bit parts – I’m sure you’ve already read about this. The most notable are James Franco playing a degenerate and Mark Wahlberg, playing a shirtless fantasy object. But to me that’s not really entertaining – that’s just actors having a laugh, amusing themselves more than me.
Personally, I like the rinse, lather and repeat. I like knowing what’s coming down the pike (or most of it anyway). But there’s something to also be said for the happy medium. My recent excursion to Atlantic City taught me that I do like to get out and have fun. Things don’t always have to be scheduled. Short notice isn’t necessarily bad. Staying at home all the time, although more affordable and in this heat, more comfortable, is fun sometimes – but not all the time. So, although I like my MANY routines, there’s nothing wrong with changing it up from time to time.
It just would have been nice if the screenwriters would have thought the same. When you have two of the funniest people in comedy tag teaming a film, it should have been better than this. Maybe Tina Fey should have hired the writers herself – or they should have hired her to write it.
7/27/2010
Doing Research Out of School
One of my biggest pet peeves is people who “don’t do their research”. Usually that term applies to people seeing a film without knowing what it’s about or choosing a film solely based on its start time. Or parents who take their children to anything animated. Or people who pay no attention to the rating system, taking their children to see everything, and then are aghast when their kids can’t quite take the gore/violence/etc. Or people who don’t read the book before seeing the film.
But within the last few weeks, this idea has now made its way into TV. Let me give you an example:
There’s a new TV show on USA called “Covert Affairs”. I’m sure you’ve seen the ads – they’ve been scattered all over TV for months. It looked like a bargain basement version of “Alias”, right down to the clothing on the female lead. But within the pilot, there is actually a reference to “Alias” (which I won’t spoil) and as soon as they said it, I was hooked.
So maybe it’s all about flattering your audience. I don’t want a film director to spoon feed me an ending or a plot, and I don’t want my TV show producer to just think I’ll follow along blindly.
All of which now brings me to the season premiere of “Mad Men”, which happened this past weekend, and my officemates and I are still discussing. Aside from the fantastic writing, new catchphrases and catching up with all the characters, there were references sprinkled through the show that I just didn’t get. And in my little red/brown/blonde head, that’s simply unacceptable. So what did I do? Googled them, of course (and from the search results, I wasn’t the only one)!
But is this something that I’m doing because I’m a self-admitted dork, or is this something that maybe more people should do? Is it ok if you don’t get what the writer is trying to tip their hat to or wink at? I know that “Psych” has all kinds of 80s references – most of which I get, but some I don’t, but I don’t research them. Ditto for “Gilmore Girls”.
But in “Mad Men” I simply have to know. It could be because most people in my office watch the show, and I can’t stand to be out of the loop. Maybe it’s because I love the era and want to know as much as I can, especially about the little things.
In my mind, if it’s good you’ll want to dig deeper into the word that's created - whether by Matt Weiner or David Lynch in “Twin Peaks” or Chris Carter in “X-Files”. TV, when done right, is more of an investment than film, and as such, requires a bit more work. They put in the work, and I can too. In Matt Weiner’s case, it’s the least I can do – he is giving me a 650 minute movie, after all.
But within the last few weeks, this idea has now made its way into TV. Let me give you an example:
There’s a new TV show on USA called “Covert Affairs”. I’m sure you’ve seen the ads – they’ve been scattered all over TV for months. It looked like a bargain basement version of “Alias”, right down to the clothing on the female lead. But within the pilot, there is actually a reference to “Alias” (which I won’t spoil) and as soon as they said it, I was hooked.
So maybe it’s all about flattering your audience. I don’t want a film director to spoon feed me an ending or a plot, and I don’t want my TV show producer to just think I’ll follow along blindly.
All of which now brings me to the season premiere of “Mad Men”, which happened this past weekend, and my officemates and I are still discussing. Aside from the fantastic writing, new catchphrases and catching up with all the characters, there were references sprinkled through the show that I just didn’t get. And in my little red/brown/blonde head, that’s simply unacceptable. So what did I do? Googled them, of course (and from the search results, I wasn’t the only one)!
But is this something that I’m doing because I’m a self-admitted dork, or is this something that maybe more people should do? Is it ok if you don’t get what the writer is trying to tip their hat to or wink at? I know that “Psych” has all kinds of 80s references – most of which I get, but some I don’t, but I don’t research them. Ditto for “Gilmore Girls”.
But in “Mad Men” I simply have to know. It could be because most people in my office watch the show, and I can’t stand to be out of the loop. Maybe it’s because I love the era and want to know as much as I can, especially about the little things.
In my mind, if it’s good you’ll want to dig deeper into the word that's created - whether by Matt Weiner or David Lynch in “Twin Peaks” or Chris Carter in “X-Files”. TV, when done right, is more of an investment than film, and as such, requires a bit more work. They put in the work, and I can too. In Matt Weiner’s case, it’s the least I can do – he is giving me a 650 minute movie, after all.
7/23/2010
"Inception" the exception
Once in a while, a movie comes out changing the way that you look at film as a whole. In 1993, it was “Jurassic Park”; in 1999, “The Matrix”. Last year it was “Avatar”. Usually I hate these films, thinking they are showy and hollow instead of multi-dimensional, or rehashes of old stories with pretty effects thrown in for attention.
I’m extremely overjoyed to report that “Inception” is the EXception. And it comes as no surprise at all that it’s delivered courtesy of the greatest director working today (sorry, Marty) – Christopher Nolan.
If you are only familiar with Nolan as the director of “The Dark Knight”, you may walk out of “Inception” feeling like you’ve been hit by a truck. I admit it’s not the always the easiest film to follow. The general gist (and that’s all I’ll reveal) is the main character, Cobb, (Leonardo DiCaprio, minus the additional ‘r’) plays a manipulator of the mind (the worst kind) who steals and exploits your secrets as you sleep. Revealing more would ruin the experience (which, depending on your pov, may or may not be “fun”).
This is the Nolan of the ultimate mind-fuck. But whereas “The Following” and “Memento” messed with your mind, this film also messes with your heart. (I will admit I did cry.) Cobb is a troubled soul with demons as always, but one of his ghosts is personified as his wife, Mal (the wonderful Marion Cotillard).
The reason why it’s difficult to really describe “Inception” is because I don’t really think I’ve ever seen anything like it. The premise is original and stays with you long after you leave the theater, two and a half hours after you sat down. The cast is amazing, from Leo to Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Ellen Page and on and on. The effects are awesome, as the viewer and the characters are literally tossed every which way.
Here’s a note about the ending: whatever you think it is, that’s what it is. And that’s both the whole point and the greatest gift. It has no big bow, and if you expect one, don’t bother. This film requires your attention from start to finish, and if you don’t give it, then you won’t get it.
The only downside of the film (a really small one at that), is that DiCaprio’s portrayal of Cobb is quite a bit similar to one he gave earlier this year, in that pile of dreck called “Shutter Island”. When “Inception” ended, my first thought was that this was what SI SHOULD have been. But, upon further reflection, it’s what ALL films should be – and directors (and writers, as Nolan also penned it).
Given that the Oscars now have expanded to 10 films for Best Picture (which many call “The Dark Knight Rule”), I feel safe in saying that Nolan is a LOCK for a nomination, as is the film. I can’t wait to see if any film can “top” it.
I’m extremely overjoyed to report that “Inception” is the EXception. And it comes as no surprise at all that it’s delivered courtesy of the greatest director working today (sorry, Marty) – Christopher Nolan.
If you are only familiar with Nolan as the director of “The Dark Knight”, you may walk out of “Inception” feeling like you’ve been hit by a truck. I admit it’s not the always the easiest film to follow. The general gist (and that’s all I’ll reveal) is the main character, Cobb, (Leonardo DiCaprio, minus the additional ‘r’) plays a manipulator of the mind (the worst kind) who steals and exploits your secrets as you sleep. Revealing more would ruin the experience (which, depending on your pov, may or may not be “fun”).
This is the Nolan of the ultimate mind-fuck. But whereas “The Following” and “Memento” messed with your mind, this film also messes with your heart. (I will admit I did cry.) Cobb is a troubled soul with demons as always, but one of his ghosts is personified as his wife, Mal (the wonderful Marion Cotillard).
The reason why it’s difficult to really describe “Inception” is because I don’t really think I’ve ever seen anything like it. The premise is original and stays with you long after you leave the theater, two and a half hours after you sat down. The cast is amazing, from Leo to Joseph Gordon-Levitt to Ellen Page and on and on. The effects are awesome, as the viewer and the characters are literally tossed every which way.
Here’s a note about the ending: whatever you think it is, that’s what it is. And that’s both the whole point and the greatest gift. It has no big bow, and if you expect one, don’t bother. This film requires your attention from start to finish, and if you don’t give it, then you won’t get it.
The only downside of the film (a really small one at that), is that DiCaprio’s portrayal of Cobb is quite a bit similar to one he gave earlier this year, in that pile of dreck called “Shutter Island”. When “Inception” ended, my first thought was that this was what SI SHOULD have been. But, upon further reflection, it’s what ALL films should be – and directors (and writers, as Nolan also penned it).
Given that the Oscars now have expanded to 10 films for Best Picture (which many call “The Dark Knight Rule”), I feel safe in saying that Nolan is a LOCK for a nomination, as is the film. I can’t wait to see if any film can “top” it.
7/20/2010
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - B.H. (Before Hollywood)
Hollywood is all abuzz about “The Millenium Trilogy”. Based upon a series of novels by the late Steig Larsson, they revolve around the exploits of hacker extraordinaire Lisabeth Salander and her cohort Mikhail Blomkvist. I have not yet read these books, which is a bit unusual.
Why? Because the films have already been made – in Sweden. The first in the set, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, was released theatrically at the close of last year.
That’s right – LAST YEAR. How ridiculous is that? I know that Hollywood counts on the memories of the cinematic public to be short, but THAT SHORT? How insulting.
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a gritty, grainy looking film, like something from the 70s or 80s. It’s supposed to be that way. For the first ten minutes of its rather long 2.5 hour run time, it’s a neat trick. About halfway through you can’t help but wonder what they’re going to do when they have a decent sized budget.
The story is extremely interesting, although I can’t really see it translating to the States well. Blomkvist is a respected journalist who is accused of and jailed for libel against a very powerful organization. He needs to clear his name. In the meantime, he is also hired by a dying tycoon to find out who killed his lost relative.
What makes the story work isn’t really the premise - which can get outlandish and dated at times - it’s the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. Both of these people are damaged and alone, and you don’t need subtitles to see it. I attribute this to the performances of both the leads. There are lots of chase scenes created by someone who actually knows how to choreograph such things. And even though there are times that you need a bit of a leap of faith to get past the obvious clichés, it’s still a great idea. By the end, you do want to know what happens to the characters going forward. I think it also helps that both are unknown to me. If you put established actors in these roles (*cough * Mulligan and Craig), I don’t see it working as well.
I’m sure there will things needing “updating” or “revision”. The original title of the film is “Millenium #1: Men Who Hate Women”. Parts of it are EXTREMELY misogynistic and violent. There are a few scenes that will have to be scaled down – only one of which isn’t necessary to advance the story. American audiences can’t handle it.
The other two films have already been completed and released in Sweden. The second is about to hit US audiences soon. The third has no US release date yet (possibly because the book was just released here a few months ago). I think I’ll stay with the foreign version for now, before I look to the “updated” or “revamped” version. The only Glamorizing I’m interested in right now belongs on “True Blood”.
Why? Because the films have already been made – in Sweden. The first in the set, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”, was released theatrically at the close of last year.
That’s right – LAST YEAR. How ridiculous is that? I know that Hollywood counts on the memories of the cinematic public to be short, but THAT SHORT? How insulting.
“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is a gritty, grainy looking film, like something from the 70s or 80s. It’s supposed to be that way. For the first ten minutes of its rather long 2.5 hour run time, it’s a neat trick. About halfway through you can’t help but wonder what they’re going to do when they have a decent sized budget.
The story is extremely interesting, although I can’t really see it translating to the States well. Blomkvist is a respected journalist who is accused of and jailed for libel against a very powerful organization. He needs to clear his name. In the meantime, he is also hired by a dying tycoon to find out who killed his lost relative.
What makes the story work isn’t really the premise - which can get outlandish and dated at times - it’s the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist. Both of these people are damaged and alone, and you don’t need subtitles to see it. I attribute this to the performances of both the leads. There are lots of chase scenes created by someone who actually knows how to choreograph such things. And even though there are times that you need a bit of a leap of faith to get past the obvious clichés, it’s still a great idea. By the end, you do want to know what happens to the characters going forward. I think it also helps that both are unknown to me. If you put established actors in these roles (*cough * Mulligan and Craig), I don’t see it working as well.
I’m sure there will things needing “updating” or “revision”. The original title of the film is “Millenium #1: Men Who Hate Women”. Parts of it are EXTREMELY misogynistic and violent. There are a few scenes that will have to be scaled down – only one of which isn’t necessary to advance the story. American audiences can’t handle it.
The other two films have already been completed and released in Sweden. The second is about to hit US audiences soon. The third has no US release date yet (possibly because the book was just released here a few months ago). I think I’ll stay with the foreign version for now, before I look to the “updated” or “revamped” version. The only Glamorizing I’m interested in right now belongs on “True Blood”.
7/11/2010
The sun (and moon) have set on "Eclipse"
Let the record show – “I’m SO over ‘The Twilight’”, as in “The Twilight Phenomenon”. I’ve read all the books, and I did enjoy them (except for the last one, which I think was only written for money and is basically softcore porn repackaged). I wasn’t Team Jacob, nor was I Team Edward; I’ve always been firmly Team Bella.
But after seeing “Eclipse”, I’m just done with the whole thing. These aren’t films anymore or even stories. They are just Mighty Marketing Juggernauts. It’s Fad Gone Wild, and I don’t want anything more to do with it.
Maybe the reason I’m over it is because I’ve grown up. When I read the books, I was in a totally different place in my life than I am now. Plus, everyone agrees that books are usually better than movies. I can forgive the poorly written dialogue in the books, because after all they are really young adult novels. They shouldn’t BE that great, and they aren’t. And I’ve always been an advocate of a female empowerment message, especially for young girls.
Translating it to film, however, is a whole other story. A friend of mine told me that the audience for “Eclipse” is 60% teenage girls, 20% cougar females, and 20% gay boys. I fit into none of these categories, and actually laughed out loud during Taylor Lautner’s entrance, where I felt the only thing missing was porn music. (Although, during my “New Moon” showing, there was a collective gasp when he took off his shirt for the first time, which I also found laughable.)
Is it a bad film? No – I’ve certainly seen worse. Is it a good film? Not really – I’ve certainly seen better. That’s why this column is a bit difficult to write – it’s always hard to do the “blah” films. The story is passable, but the dialogue is HORRENDOUS, and it’s delivered even worse. Kristen Stewart has gone from brooding to simpering, Pattinson is officially annoying and Lautner seems too young to really consider. They still haven’t improved the glistening effect of the vampires in the sun; and the meadow now has WAY too much yellow. And when did vampires become porcelain?
But before you think I’m completely negative about it, there are some good things. Each film in the series has brought a bigger budget, which is obvious. The effects are getting better. The wolves look awesome. The fight choreography seems better. The scenery is spectacular as always. I like the fact that this volume gives a back story on some of the supporting characters, and is a showcase for someone other than the Big Three to shine.
I know that they need one more film to tie up the plotline with the Volturri. Please note I said ONE, not two. That’s another example of milking it. I don’t care if Scorsese himself directs it – two films just aren’t needed.
But apparently more money is. I just don’t think the next one will get mine.
But after seeing “Eclipse”, I’m just done with the whole thing. These aren’t films anymore or even stories. They are just Mighty Marketing Juggernauts. It’s Fad Gone Wild, and I don’t want anything more to do with it.
Maybe the reason I’m over it is because I’ve grown up. When I read the books, I was in a totally different place in my life than I am now. Plus, everyone agrees that books are usually better than movies. I can forgive the poorly written dialogue in the books, because after all they are really young adult novels. They shouldn’t BE that great, and they aren’t. And I’ve always been an advocate of a female empowerment message, especially for young girls.
Translating it to film, however, is a whole other story. A friend of mine told me that the audience for “Eclipse” is 60% teenage girls, 20% cougar females, and 20% gay boys. I fit into none of these categories, and actually laughed out loud during Taylor Lautner’s entrance, where I felt the only thing missing was porn music. (Although, during my “New Moon” showing, there was a collective gasp when he took off his shirt for the first time, which I also found laughable.)
Is it a bad film? No – I’ve certainly seen worse. Is it a good film? Not really – I’ve certainly seen better. That’s why this column is a bit difficult to write – it’s always hard to do the “blah” films. The story is passable, but the dialogue is HORRENDOUS, and it’s delivered even worse. Kristen Stewart has gone from brooding to simpering, Pattinson is officially annoying and Lautner seems too young to really consider. They still haven’t improved the glistening effect of the vampires in the sun; and the meadow now has WAY too much yellow. And when did vampires become porcelain?
But before you think I’m completely negative about it, there are some good things. Each film in the series has brought a bigger budget, which is obvious. The effects are getting better. The wolves look awesome. The fight choreography seems better. The scenery is spectacular as always. I like the fact that this volume gives a back story on some of the supporting characters, and is a showcase for someone other than the Big Three to shine.
I know that they need one more film to tie up the plotline with the Volturri. Please note I said ONE, not two. That’s another example of milking it. I don’t care if Scorsese himself directs it – two films just aren’t needed.
But apparently more money is. I just don’t think the next one will get mine.
6/29/2010
Lowering Prices Doesn't Have to Mean Lowering Standards
Ever notice that the cheaper a film becomes to watch, the more likely you are to watch it? To me, very few films are worth spending the IMAX-ish money at my local theater. However, for those films on the bubble, there are daily matinees and my local Cineplex does have a 6.00 Wednesday special. But lately it’s not a money issue, but a time one.
But tonight I caught a break. Leaving work at 6:30 gave me enough time to watch and review a film in the same night. That’s not usual practice, but I do have a self-imposed 4 monthly post deadline to hit. I wanted a film requiring little thought, but still seemed interesting. After reviewing the new movies menu from my soon-to-be-ex cable company, I selected “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”.
I knew this was the possible start of a franchise, with the studio thinking it will replace the OTHER franchise about the young wizards. This film has two major selling points for me. The first was that I HAVEN’T read the source material. I have this bad habit of being a voracious reader. By the time the movie has come out, I have already read the book which usually ruins the film. (Case in point: I’m currently reading “The Passage”, which has already been optioned by Ridley Scott.) The second is that I am familiar with the background of the story.
I found it entertaining to see how they incorporated the myths I read as a child in a modern setting. I loved the parade of cameos; even the credits were a kick to watch. The adults in the film are truly an ensemble; and are more recognizable that the ones in the OTHER franchise. But the film belongs to the three leads (Why does it always have to be three, btw?) who were complete unknowns to me. I thought the acting was solid, the writing was above average, and the ideas themselves were extremely entertaining.
The other thing worth mentioning is the use of special effects. Most of the time effects bore me. I find them fake and distancing to the audience. But here they actually worked. I’m not sure if that’s because of the state I’m in, or if it’s because of the world the filmmakers put me in, but either way it was successful.
This is what I’d consider a true family film. It doesn’t pander down to children, and it’s intelligent enough to hold the attention of adults. I guess that’s why it was one of the first well-reviewed films of 2010. In a summer saturated with stories I’ve already heard or couldn’t care less about, it was very nice to finally see a film that was original, in its own way.
If they do decide to make this into a franchise (and I have no doubt that they will), I’m all for it. And I PROMISE not to read the books!
But tonight I caught a break. Leaving work at 6:30 gave me enough time to watch and review a film in the same night. That’s not usual practice, but I do have a self-imposed 4 monthly post deadline to hit. I wanted a film requiring little thought, but still seemed interesting. After reviewing the new movies menu from my soon-to-be-ex cable company, I selected “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief”.
I knew this was the possible start of a franchise, with the studio thinking it will replace the OTHER franchise about the young wizards. This film has two major selling points for me. The first was that I HAVEN’T read the source material. I have this bad habit of being a voracious reader. By the time the movie has come out, I have already read the book which usually ruins the film. (Case in point: I’m currently reading “The Passage”, which has already been optioned by Ridley Scott.) The second is that I am familiar with the background of the story.
I found it entertaining to see how they incorporated the myths I read as a child in a modern setting. I loved the parade of cameos; even the credits were a kick to watch. The adults in the film are truly an ensemble; and are more recognizable that the ones in the OTHER franchise. But the film belongs to the three leads (Why does it always have to be three, btw?) who were complete unknowns to me. I thought the acting was solid, the writing was above average, and the ideas themselves were extremely entertaining.
The other thing worth mentioning is the use of special effects. Most of the time effects bore me. I find them fake and distancing to the audience. But here they actually worked. I’m not sure if that’s because of the state I’m in, or if it’s because of the world the filmmakers put me in, but either way it was successful.
This is what I’d consider a true family film. It doesn’t pander down to children, and it’s intelligent enough to hold the attention of adults. I guess that’s why it was one of the first well-reviewed films of 2010. In a summer saturated with stories I’ve already heard or couldn’t care less about, it was very nice to finally see a film that was original, in its own way.
If they do decide to make this into a franchise (and I have no doubt that they will), I’m all for it. And I PROMISE not to read the books!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)