New Review: The Good, The Bad, The Weird

Eastern Promises

As much as I try to make it to the movies every weekend, sometimes it just never comes to fruition. Sometimes I'm busy with other projects, and I just don't have the necessary time. Most of the time when this happens, it's just because there aren't any new releases that interest me in the slightest. I had little to no interest in seeing The Back-Up Plan or The Losers, and judging by the recent box office reports, it looks like nobody else did either. So with nothing at the multiplex, I tend to turn toward other venues, and one happens to be Comcasts's Video On Demand section. That's where I caught this movie, and it's a wild and crazy ride that is extremely entertaining.

As the title suggests, this is an homage to Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns, only this one has moved from the American outback to Manchuria, a Japanese puppet colony to control Korea during World War II. Like Leone's classic, the main motivation for all the parties involved is searching for treasure. A map is introduced which captures the attention of Yoon Tae-goo (The Weird), a common bandit with masterful skills, Park Chang-yi (The Bad), a sleek and villainous thief searching for the map and a score to settle with Tae-goo, and Park Do-won (The Good), a cowboy type who teams up with Tae-goo for a complicated friendship while trying to collect the bounty on Chang-yi.

I will be honest that I could care less about the plot to this movie; it's as thin as that map itself, making for some very weak glue. But you know what, I don't care because the movie itself doesn't care. The only goal for director and co-writer Kim Ji-woon is to keep up a great energy throughout the film. The ecstatic camera constantly moves and gives the film a playful sense of humor and grandiose. The only complaint I would have in some of the action moments is that, while all of them are very well executed, they tend to go on for too long. An extended chase scene near the end of the film definitely feels the length. However, even then, just when you start to feel it, an element is introduced to get you invested again.

Those action scenes are fun and exciting, but like most revisionist westerns, the strengths are actually in the more quiet moments. These are the moments where the story can have time to breath, the humor feels the most potent, and the actors have a better showcase of their talent. Song Kang-ho plays the Weird, and he's memorable from films like Thirst and The Host. His quick and witty energy is an element to be desired and he's quite fun to watch. The same goes for Byung-hun Lee, who plays The Bad and most recently seen as Storm Shadow in the horrid G.I. Joe. He gets a flashy villain that betrays the time period but still he still pulls it off perfectly as a hammy villain. While I do think the character of The Good is short changed by some lack of character development, Jung Woo-sung plays him in such capable hands that he can still bring out a sense of depth and realism that isn't presented by the script.

This is a movie that aims for the type of audience that devoured Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill films, and if you are one of those people, then you'll gobble this one up too, particularly since there's enough homages to Tarantino's own repertoire of homages. I like to look at this film as for someone who just loves movies: loves the way they can get you excited, to laugh, and to even be taken in by some dramatic moments in the acting. I think this film has it all with great production values to match, and even though it gets a little long in those action sequences, I still loved nearly all of this film. Once again, I thank Comcast for another great movie. Now I need to look onto next week, and hopefully something will bring me back to that dark room.

A-

Commentary: Why I Won't Buy Avatar

Today's the big day. To cleverly coincide with Earth Day, James Cameron's environmentalist war epic, and multi-billion dollar earner, Avatar is finally being released on Blu-ray and DVD. I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will flock to buy the movie, and I don't blame them. After all, I gave the film a very positive review on my old blog and thought it was one of the best films of the year. So with all that, I am more than confident that I will not be one of the many who will buy James Cameron's latest cinematic achievement.

One main reason why I won't indulge is that this particular version is being released is that it's a bare bones edition of the film, one in which only the film is included. Perhaps that is enough for some, but for me it doesn't even come close. I know with certainty that Cameron is preparing multiple releases of this film, complete with the commentaries, featurettes and those well documented deleted scenes. Even if that were the only reason I wouldn't buy this film, I'd consider myself justified.

But that's not the only reason I'm not going to buy the film. In fact, it's not even the main reason. I had the privilege of seeing the film three times in theaters, once at IMAX and twice at a regular movie house. What all these experiences had in common is that both were generally large screens and all were in 3D. And that is the only way to see this movie because that is the way James Cameron wanted me to see it.

You may call me a purist about a movie going experience (another term for some is probably movie snob), and I believe that every movie should be seen in the way it was intended by the filmmaker. If the movie was shot in widescreen, then I must watch it that way. If the movie was shot in another language, then bring on the subtitles. And when a film is conceived and shot in 3D in order to bring me into the full universe of the film, then that is the experience I need.

Unfortunately, you cannot duplicate that experience with a home viewing experience. When Avatar is eventually released for the 3D television sets, they'll be pimping that idea of the "true" experience you'll get at home. I have no interest in getting a 3D set because 3D doesn't work at the home, at least for a gimmick-less film like Cameron's. The only way I can get immersed in that world is by looking at that 3D environment with a huge, encapsulating screen in front of me. No matter how big a television set is at home, it cannot duplicate the theatre going experience. To me, watching it any other way would be comparable to watching a widescreen movie in full screen or a foreign film dubbed in English: I can still get the gist of the film, but I'm missing out on the experience I was intended to witness, and I lose a bit from the film which saddens me greatly.

I don't look down on anyone who wants to buy Avatar, and if you decide just to wait if only for the 3D special edition that is released for your pretty impressive 3D set, then I won't discourage you. Avatar is a wonderful film to support. But the way I see it, Cameron made a film so perfect for the big screen, movie theatre experience that watching it on a dwarfed television set takes away from the exquisiteness of his expertise. So that's my two cents. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch Jeff Bridges's Oscar winning performance in Crazy Heart. I'd highly recommend you do the same.

Oldies Spin: The Lion in Winter

This is a new feature I’ll be doing on this blog called “Oldies Spin”. This is a section in which I’ll be taking a look back at some older films and give them their own reviews. Some of them I’ll quite enjoy, and others I might not have a great affection for. It’s also important to know that my definition of “oldies” might be a bit loose in certain areas, as I might review a movie that seems quite recent. Basically, the term means any movie that wasn’t released was already released before October 2007, when Oscar Obsessed went online. I hope you enjoy:

The Lion in Winter (1968)

There are a few films out there which, to me, I can watch at any moment. I mean that literally: no matter what time of day it is, no matter what I’m currently doing, no matter how far into the film it is, I can drop everything of concern for that moment and watch the movie. There aren’t many films that have that appeal for me. One would be Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard and the other is this. This is a classic film which boasts one of the finest casts ever put on film.

For those unfamiliar with the premise, the setup is around Christmas time in England, circa 1183. King Henry II, played by a burly and bearded Peter O’Toole, is getting older and must choose an heir to succeed him. But that isn’t quite such an easy task. He wants his youngest son John (Nigel Terry, from Excalibur) whose piggish and immature mannerism make him a foul presence but the loving recipient of his father’s unfiltered affection. However, his wife Eleanor, as played by the always delightful Katherine Hepburn, wants their eldest Richard (a young Anthony Hopkins) to take the crown, whose hard edge athleticism makes him a strong warrior. All the while, the middle son Geoffrey (John Castle), constantly left out of kingly decisions, plots against everyone, which includes his family and the peace negotiations between Henry and the King of France (an even younger Timothy Dalton).

I love this ensemble. If the Screen Actors Guild had been giving awards out during this time, this would definitely have been the winner for Best Ensemble. O’Toole commands the screen in every moment he’s in, constantly providing the huge outbursts as well as the cunning mindset that is required to be a king. O’Toole has yet to win an Academy Award, and out of all the great performances in his career, this should have been the one he’d have taken. Hepburn, on the other hand, did win an Oscar for this (she tied with Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl) and that was well deserved. Her sparring with O’Toole creates a loving tension spread throughout the film. She always knows how to say the right things when necessary and when to appear more vulnerable. The dynamic between the two of them is one of the greatest cinematic pairings I’ve seen, one that never becomes the product of diminishing returns.

Hopkins shows great talent in an early role here, and fills the archetype of the foolhardy, oldest sibling quite well. There’s also an intriguing twist on his character, and Hopkins manages to handle that in a grounded and realistic way. Terry as John, I will admit, feels a bit one note at times, but the way he captures the whiny and pouting slob is sublime. Even as King Arthur later in his career, he can still make me believe in this character a great deal. Of all the sons, though, Castle is the best. His Geoffrey is deceitful in every sense of the word but never is a true villain. He plays his family for a lark, but its common practice here. Every delivery of Castle’s is cold, sharp and calculated, letting you believe that with every word he says there’s a dozen different other plans going. All three of these actors deserved Oscar nominations, in my opinion, and Castle deserved to win.

There’s also good supporting turns from Dalton, who manages to walk that fine line of inexperienced ruler fueled by emotion and exquisite planner who’s five steps ahead of everyone else. I get so much joy in watching an actor I like doing so well in an early stage of his career, especially one who would eventually be part of my favorite film franchise as James Bond. There’s another good turn from Jane Merrow as Henry’s mistress who feels like a fly caught in the web of the family’s distaste for one another. She’s an innocent bystander in the bullets that fly across the family table, but soon enough her innocence is compromised and she handles her circumstances quite well.

Of course, all these great actors have a wonderful script to read from. James Goldman, who adapted from his own stage play, provides a wonderful mix of humor and drama. The words never fail to make me smirk at the sly wit of quick and insightful banter of insults, while at the same time make me believe in the tenderness and emotion that makes me believe that even under all the backstabbing, this family still loves each other. I’ll lament that maybe the direction from Anthony Harvey isn’t as flashy as it could have been, he still manages to reign in a lot of great talent and uses it to good effect.

I’ll refrain from saying this is a flawless film; a statement like that is untrue for any movie. However, it is definitely one that I love. The acting is superb and the script if fantastic. If you manage to flip by it on a lonely night on Turner Classic Movies, then stick with it. I find this to an amazing work of cinema that I can’t wait to drop everything and watch again.

A

New Review: Kick-Ass

Galls of Fury

Since this is the first review of my brand new blog, it's nice to start things out by being completely honest. And the honest thing is that I actually wasn't looking forward to this movie. It looked like it had a good spirit, and those who found enjoyment in the source material were sure to find it here. However, I couldn't shake a smug attitude I was getting from the film, one that carried a self-congratulatory smile of being produced outside the system and patted itself on the back for bringing its questionable content out to the public with no interference. I admit that I came into this film with a heavy set of preconceived notions. I will also admit that by the end of the film, they were left behind as I found myself enjoying this film a great more than I thought I would.

The titular "superhero" is the alter-ego of Dave Lezewski (Aaron Johnson), a vanilla high school student whose fascination with the comic book lords inspire him to done his own set of form fitting suits. He quickly learns that superhero work is quite dangerous, and after several incidents that leave him bloodied and near death, he eventually emerges victorious in one fight which is filmed and put on the internet. Soon, Kick-Ass is a big celebrity with a busy Myspace account (making the film a tad dated) and inspiring a new wave of superheroes, chief among them are Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and his eleven-year-old daughter Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) who leave a trail of bloodshed and foul language toward an evil mob boss (Mark Strong).

I will say that I did get the feel of that ultra-smug attitude in the beginning of the movie, where it is so aware of itself by relating to other super hero comics and movies that the film doesn't carry enough wit to be smart on its own terms. Matthew Vaughn, former Guy Ritchie producer and director of Stardust and Layer Cake, sets his trademark, slick title sequence and a nice intro, but then proceeds with a bland lead set against a painfully self-conscious sense of humor. This is also the section of the movie that doesn't seem to care very much about any messages it wants to portray, as it only glimpses into the affect of a voyeuristic society and quickly tosses it aside for another shot of Kick-Ass getting beaten up.

But then, the gears shift wildly, probably upon the first entrance of Hit Girl, and suddenly the movie becomes real. The violence suddenly feels like it carries enough weight to have a sense that its characters are in real jeopardy, but always remains stylized enough so that its cinematic presentation can remain sustained. Vaughn's ability to slip in and out of slaughter and the silly is pretty well applied. He still can't help himself from indulging in a few too many sequences that revert back to a self-conscious mind or slowing down of the humor, but the second act shows most of his talent quite well. When a scene requires me to be in awe of a Batman looking Cage to kill all the guards in a warehouse, while another one can let me find a good laugh in a sex scene in which the hero touches the breasts of a girl while wearing rubber gloves, I know that Vaughn and his co-writer Jane Goldman knew what they were doing for at least two-thirds of this movie.

Johnson, at first, doesn't seem like the right fit for this character. In the beginning, he seems like an able body talent, but also feels genuinely bland. But then he starts to work; his emotions feel real, his humor is felt and the journey he takes finally starts to become a genuine concern. After he witnesses what real destruction can do after watching Hit-Girl, there's a moment where he quietly weeps on his bed, recounting the horrible things he's just witnessed, bringing a grounded personality to a character who until then was rather light.

Cage delivers one his better "eccentric" performances and the chemistry he has with Moretz is funny and, believe it or not, rather sweet. Moretz has already impressed me in other roles, particularly as Joseph Gordon-Levitt's wise-cracking younger sister in (500) Days of Summer, and while I wish the sensationalism of her character's violent antics hadn't overshadowed all the emotional weight that could be derived, I'd say she does well enough in the role to make an unbelievable circumstance somewhat believable. Strong, an actor I've admired for a while now, provides great control in a villainous role, though I don't know how much skill he has at improv. One other character I've left out is Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and that's only because he has a character that is treated in a very clever way that has been left out of all the advertisement. Concealing this tidbit is wise, as it's a nice twist on what could have been a mundane story element.

The first act of the film comes with a bit of an anvil, and it carries the dead weight of smug humor, a muddled pace and an uninteresting hero. But trust me when I say that sticking with it will pay off in the end. The film will get to be fun, exciting and will even squeeze out some sentiment as well. Obviously I can't say the film is for everyone, but those who have a suspicion that they'll enjoy the subject matter, then I'd say that you'll probably enjoy it. And if you happen to be someone who carries the same preconceived notions that I did, then I'd suggest you put them to the test. Who knows, you might leave them behind in the same spot that I did.

B+

Commentary: Significantly Better Remakes

Two weeks ago, Clash of the Titans was released to cinemas. From the looks of most of the reviews, it seems I was in a very select minority that actually liked the film. More than likely, an even more select minority I belong to is probably thinking that the remake was better than the original film. This got me thinking about other remakes that I think are better than their originals. There aren't many out there, but these are five I admire far above their original films.

Casino Royale (2006)

I know that this isn't technically a remake, but considering that there's not one, but two previously produced films based on the exact same source material, I'd say it qualifies enough. Most people remember the 1967 farce, and with a gigantic and convoluted story, five directors (including John Huston) and a bloated cast that included David Niven, Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, Ursula Andress and Woody Allen, the whole film is a mess. Bond's reinvention into the franchise was a welcomed breath of fresh air, grounding the character in a real piece of humanity and giving gravity to the heavy action spectacle. I know there's no real connection between the original film and the remake, but when you're faced with two movies with the same title and both are taken from the same source, one is bound to be superior. It's no surprise that it's this one.

The Fly (1986)

I have affection for the original film, but in all honesty, I admire it only for its dicey '50s science and cheesy melodrama. And the real shame is that most of the film is actually not about the mad scientist but his suffering wife. Not so much the case when David Cronenberg gets involved. In his twisted hands, he turns what was a throwaway B-movie into a deeply prodded, psychological horror story. Cronenberg twists the suspense while giving some great food for thought on the human psyche. Not to mention there's also great performances from Geena Davis and Jeff Goldblum, in a career best performance from here. You can admire this film on the mere greater attention to scientific detail. From the moment that Howard Shore's operatic score pierces the credit sequence to when downtrodden final moments bleeding with disturbing sadness, this film makes its mark as not only one of the best Cronenberg films, but one of the best sci-fi movies made. Sadly, I can't say so much about the original film, despite having Vincent Price.

Cape Fear (1991)

Like most of the films on this list, this is yet another case where I do like the original film. After all, the 1962 version still carries an air of suspense, and having two great actors like Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck go against each other is cinematic treasure. In the end, however, all that is there is a basic suspense film that is limited on character and depth. However, Martin Scorsese's take is one that dives into the personal turmoil of these characters, fleshing out richer and more complex people to follow. It's a stylized remake, but everything is done in service to create a superior film. A major reason I prefer this version is that the Nick Nolte character (Peck's role in the original) is no longer a straight laced protagonist; there's skeletons in his closet that keep him from being totally sympathetic. Another change is that the daughter, played by Juliette Lewis, is older, making the predatory seduction between her and Robert De Niro's villain feel much more dangerous. The film gets a little heavy handed in the end, but the great performances and controlled direction make this a must see, even over the original.

The Thing (1982)

I almost hesitated putting this one the list, not only because I admire the original as a nostalgic classic, but also because I know that even John Carpenter respects the film this is based on, even providing some nods and homages to that film. But in the end, you simply can't compare a more thoroughly executed, smartly developed, multi-character study against an admittedly tacky monster movie. Carpenter lets the drama wind up tight and never lets it go. The story's a continuation from the first chapter, but the nature of the beast is totally different, which allows for a guessing game that still manages to pull me in, surprisingly even after multiple viewings. The film is chilling, moody, frightening and a helluva good time. You can't say that about many films, and certainly not the one this is based on.

Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

Saying that there's a better film out there than Roger Corman's cheaply produced cult classic certainly isn't saying much. Despite a cheap thrill at seeing a very young Jack Nicholson, the original film doesn't have that much to offer. On the other hand, the musical remake offers a much better time: the songs are catchy, the actors feel more accomplished, and the belting tunes of the plant by the dearly departed Levi Stubbs bring a personality to Audrey II that is unforgettable. It seems like the '80s was all about remaking classic horror movies of the past. The other thread in common is almost all of these films managed to take the good parts of those films and turn them into something better (excluding The Blob, which pretty much stayed on the same level). A singing plant, a demented dentist, and an Oscar-nominated song that uses a great double entendre helps to seal the deal.

Did I miss anything? I'm sure I did, or I might be insane for even thinking these films come anywhere close to their original counterparts. Who knows.

It's time to move on...

I don't know exactly how many people follow my regular blog, but even though it might be just a few, I still have to be honest. And the truth is that the title "Oscar Obsessed" seems no longer an appropriate title for a blog managed by yours truly. Over the years, I admit that I've grown tired of the Oscar process, mainly for two reasons. One: I'm a little sick of the self-congratulatory facade that puts so much importance on what a group of only six thousand people in Hollywood think. Secondly, I'm just tired of the films I love and admire not getting nominations. Last year, two films in my top five (Where the Wild Things Are, (500) Days of Summer) were completely shut out. So saying that I'm obsessed with the Oscars I find no longer to be accurate. I'll still watch the ceremony every year, and participate in the mandatory predictions game, but the passion for the whole thing has dwindled immensely.

So that old site is pretty much done. Now a new one has begun. This site, I intend, to not focus only on the Oscars but on film in general. Every weekend I'll try to get to a new review, but I will also do other commentary as well, such as random ranking lists on different subjects, reviews of older films, and other topics as well. I think this adventure will find more pleasure than the last one, for me anyways. Then again, I might be the only one actually reading this. If so, then I'll be happy that I'm excited at least. If there's at least one other person out there reading this, then I hope you can be excited for what's to come as well.