I was going to let this movie die alone, but then it got a bunch of Oscar nods. Now, acting purely to balance what I see is quite off, I will give you my thoughts on the movie.
1 word: boring.
1 Phrase: It's not Forrest Gump.
Not that Forrest Gump is the most incredible movie ever. But so much happened in Forrest Gump. This is an equally long movie about...
SPOILERS
... a guy who was born old and grew younger. I would think a guy like this would have had a pretty epic life. "He's so curious" we are told by one of the actresses saying some lines.
Let me explain how curious he was. He got out of the house he was raised in only once in the roughly twenty years he lived there before moving out. Then he got a job on a ship and did that for a while. Then I walked out.
About 2/3 into the movie, Boring has aged (or de-aged) about 50 years. All I had seen of his life are the three girls he dated. One was the raspy, frustrating woman trying to narrate the story, one was a woman that cheated on her husband with Benjamin, and the other was a prostitute he bought every Sunday at a brothel. He also made some friends on the ship we worked on.
Like Forrest Gump and Big Fish, the story sets up for an incredible life story, but all we get is a summary of his sex life and job. Granted I walked out 2/3 of the way in (I did, actually, have to be somewhere and, not doing my research, did not know the movie was so long).
Anyway, that's the short and sweet of it, IMHO, from the critic that hates movies.
Added: This is the director (David Fincher) that made Fight Club and Seven. Talk about going downhill.
Showing posts with label Nitpicky Moviegoer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nitpicky Moviegoer. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Burned After Watching
I feel like the Coen Brothers invited me over for dinner and some board games, strapped me in a La-Z-boy, and then repeatedly punched me in the face. Thanks, you two. It's been a wonderful evening.
Usually I feel quite the opposite after a Coen Brothers film. I'm laughing, relieved- excited that I saw something fresh. Not this time.
Burn After Reading is so aggravatingly over the top; so flooded with Coen conventions; so utterly stupid and irreasonably violent; that it forces a revelation on me. I can take a look back on all of Coen movies and say "They really do write the same stuff over and over." This movie functions like the twist at the end of every M. Night Shamalan film. Now, it is clear what to expect from them. Now, they are predictable. This movie bombed the illusion.
So, what is it? What is the core of the Coen Brothers' filmic lifeblood? Stupid, greedy people screw up eachother's lives. That's it. To be honest, it makes for a great movie. It has worked very well until now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Spoilers. Don't even think about it. Seriously, I will spoil the shit out of this movie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The movie began slow and that is mostly the trailer's fault. The plot as revealed by the trailer starts forty-five long minutes into the movie and, while we wait, we are introduced to a wide cast of characters and four unrelated factions of the main plot.
Unfotunately, this is the catch 22 of commercials. They exist to guage interest, but they spoil scenes and may prime audiences for a totally different movie (see The Fountain).
Eventually the stupid characters arrive to make stupid decisions. Let's talk about stupid characters.
Generally, I HATE stupid characters. I have recently realized that, really, it just depends. When a stupid character is done correctly, it can work. Can you tell that I'm reluctant to say that? Sometimes stupid characters make great jokes. Sometimes smart characters fall into follies that we can relate to. That's also reasonable.
But. In most movies, ignorant characters exist solely to move the plot to places that the director would have a hard time moving it to without thinking creatively. I'm saying stupid characters and their stupid decisions are a cop-out. Instead finding a solid plot point, directors just throw in a fucking moron.
Babel has a perfect example. In one scene, a Mexican man, his aunt, and two American children she is watching over are trying to cross the border into the U.S. The racist border patrols are giving them trouble, but seem like they will let them through. Yes, even they would have made it over BUT THE FUCKING MORON DIDNT LIKE THE OFFICERS LIP AND TALKED BACK. DUDE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO PEOPLE ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO GET ACROSS THE BORDER.
Of course, he gets arrested, the plot gets worse, I get angrier, I throw a bowl of plums out the window. Whatever. I hate dumb characters.
Unless we're talking about, say, the cast of Tropic Thunder. It's a picky subject.
So, typical of most Coen movies, the cast in Burn After Reading is a bunch of morons. Fortunately, Brad Pitt makes half of his lines funny. Unfortunately, the female lead, Lilly, was WAT TOO DUMB. SO DUMB.
"You never go full retard." - Kirk Lazerus, Tropic Thunder.
I'm serious. There's dumb and there's 'I want to choke you with a queen-sized pillow soaked in ammonia'. There's 'I want to send the Coen Brothers a hot water bottle filled with bacon and bird shit.'
This woman bitches the entire movie. "I want surgery!" "I want surgery so I can begin a new life." "This will at least put a dent in the cost of my surgery." "This money will be a great start to pay for my surgery." *sob* "I've taken this body as far as it can go." Bitch. Shut. Up.
sigh
You know. I really only had two problems with this movie. Camerawork was excellent and dialogue was appropriate- as it always is in a Coen film. So, other than annoying characters, what was it?
I feel that the Coen Brothers, for the first time, forgot about their audience. They forgot about what we care about. They were so absorbed in their black comedy that they ignored the effect of the movie. The movie is undoubtedly disturbing and to me, it is depressing. To put it shortly, they murder everything we could care about in the movie.
Brad Pitt's character, as I said, was pretty funny. He's lively, young, and George Clooney shoots him in the face half way through the movie. Why? Shock value, I assume.
It's not the kind of shock that makes you say 'Oh Damn! I didn't see that coming. Wow, what a twist.' That's how I felt watching The Departed. This is the kind of shock that makes you say 'What the fuck? What the shit just happened? Grr...'
The movie has one redeeming character. The boss at HardBodies who loves Lilly. He tries to get her to recognize her true beauty, forget about the surgery, et cetera, et cetera. He's a nice guy; an innocent, patient, grandpa figure with light-blue eyes. How does this sad teddy bear die? First, John Malkovich shoots him above the heart. Still alive, he tries to get away, but Malkovich chases him outside with a small hatchet and hacks into his chest, his head, and the back of his neck. The blood spreads as the scene fades out.
Did I mention that this is the same way Steve Buscemi dies in Fargo? Even the angle was similar.
Not only did the Brothers Coen kill off both likable characters, the annoying one gets rewarded in the end. In the last scene, we are told that Lilly will get her surgery.
You know, what can I say? I agree that movies niether have to include redeeming characters nor that all likeable characters should survive. I just think it was a very poor choice. No, it was tasteless. It's Fuck You embroidered on a wedding dress; gift from daddio. Well, fuck you, Misters Coen.
I mean, do you think we're going to stop caring about your characters? Just because this is black comedy? Just because the movie is so obviously not supposed to make sense, I'm not supposed to take it seriously? Not supposed to be affected by it?
It's like they're telling me, "Look, buddy, this is just a movie, these characters are stupid, this plot is wild and unbelievable, it's ok if disturbing things happen, it's ok if we murder whomever we please. It shouldn't matter to you. Take it for what it is. A joke."
That's where I think they got it all wrong. I can't take it for what it is. I invested emotions into these characters. I knew crazy things would happen but I never thought they would bloody their hands so much for a gory joke. Nor that they would tear apart my investments by sending a parasite through the umbillical cord with which I fed from the movie.
That's why I feel burned after watching.
Burn After Reading
Usually I feel quite the opposite after a Coen Brothers film. I'm laughing, relieved- excited that I saw something fresh. Not this time.
Burn After Reading is so aggravatingly over the top; so flooded with Coen conventions; so utterly stupid and irreasonably violent; that it forces a revelation on me. I can take a look back on all of Coen movies and say "They really do write the same stuff over and over." This movie functions like the twist at the end of every M. Night Shamalan film. Now, it is clear what to expect from them. Now, they are predictable. This movie bombed the illusion.
So, what is it? What is the core of the Coen Brothers' filmic lifeblood? Stupid, greedy people screw up eachother's lives. That's it. To be honest, it makes for a great movie. It has worked very well until now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Spoilers. Don't even think about it. Seriously, I will spoil the shit out of this movie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The movie began slow and that is mostly the trailer's fault. The plot as revealed by the trailer starts forty-five long minutes into the movie and, while we wait, we are introduced to a wide cast of characters and four unrelated factions of the main plot.
Unfotunately, this is the catch 22 of commercials. They exist to guage interest, but they spoil scenes and may prime audiences for a totally different movie (see The Fountain).
Eventually the stupid characters arrive to make stupid decisions. Let's talk about stupid characters.
Generally, I HATE stupid characters. I have recently realized that, really, it just depends. When a stupid character is done correctly, it can work. Can you tell that I'm reluctant to say that? Sometimes stupid characters make great jokes. Sometimes smart characters fall into follies that we can relate to. That's also reasonable.
But. In most movies, ignorant characters exist solely to move the plot to places that the director would have a hard time moving it to without thinking creatively. I'm saying stupid characters and their stupid decisions are a cop-out. Instead finding a solid plot point, directors just throw in a fucking moron.
Babel has a perfect example. In one scene, a Mexican man, his aunt, and two American children she is watching over are trying to cross the border into the U.S. The racist border patrols are giving them trouble, but seem like they will let them through. Yes, even they would have made it over BUT THE FUCKING MORON DIDNT LIKE THE OFFICERS LIP AND TALKED BACK. DUDE SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO PEOPLE ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO GET ACROSS THE BORDER.
Of course, he gets arrested, the plot gets worse, I get angrier, I throw a bowl of plums out the window. Whatever. I hate dumb characters.
Unless we're talking about, say, the cast of Tropic Thunder. It's a picky subject.
So, typical of most Coen movies, the cast in Burn After Reading is a bunch of morons. Fortunately, Brad Pitt makes half of his lines funny. Unfortunately, the female lead, Lilly, was WAT TOO DUMB. SO DUMB.
"You never go full retard." - Kirk Lazerus, Tropic Thunder.
I'm serious. There's dumb and there's 'I want to choke you with a queen-sized pillow soaked in ammonia'. There's 'I want to send the Coen Brothers a hot water bottle filled with bacon and bird shit.'
This woman bitches the entire movie. "I want surgery!" "I want surgery so I can begin a new life." "This will at least put a dent in the cost of my surgery." "This money will be a great start to pay for my surgery." *sob* "I've taken this body as far as it can go." Bitch. Shut. Up.
sigh
You know. I really only had two problems with this movie. Camerawork was excellent and dialogue was appropriate- as it always is in a Coen film. So, other than annoying characters, what was it?
I feel that the Coen Brothers, for the first time, forgot about their audience. They forgot about what we care about. They were so absorbed in their black comedy that they ignored the effect of the movie. The movie is undoubtedly disturbing and to me, it is depressing. To put it shortly, they murder everything we could care about in the movie.
Brad Pitt's character, as I said, was pretty funny. He's lively, young, and George Clooney shoots him in the face half way through the movie. Why? Shock value, I assume.
It's not the kind of shock that makes you say 'Oh Damn! I didn't see that coming. Wow, what a twist.' That's how I felt watching The Departed. This is the kind of shock that makes you say 'What the fuck? What the shit just happened? Grr...'
The movie has one redeeming character. The boss at HardBodies who loves Lilly. He tries to get her to recognize her true beauty, forget about the surgery, et cetera, et cetera. He's a nice guy; an innocent, patient, grandpa figure with light-blue eyes. How does this sad teddy bear die? First, John Malkovich shoots him above the heart. Still alive, he tries to get away, but Malkovich chases him outside with a small hatchet and hacks into his chest, his head, and the back of his neck. The blood spreads as the scene fades out.
Did I mention that this is the same way Steve Buscemi dies in Fargo? Even the angle was similar.
Not only did the Brothers Coen kill off both likable characters, the annoying one gets rewarded in the end. In the last scene, we are told that Lilly will get her surgery.
You know, what can I say? I agree that movies niether have to include redeeming characters nor that all likeable characters should survive. I just think it was a very poor choice. No, it was tasteless. It's Fuck You embroidered on a wedding dress; gift from daddio. Well, fuck you, Misters Coen.
I mean, do you think we're going to stop caring about your characters? Just because this is black comedy? Just because the movie is so obviously not supposed to make sense, I'm not supposed to take it seriously? Not supposed to be affected by it?
It's like they're telling me, "Look, buddy, this is just a movie, these characters are stupid, this plot is wild and unbelievable, it's ok if disturbing things happen, it's ok if we murder whomever we please. It shouldn't matter to you. Take it for what it is. A joke."
That's where I think they got it all wrong. I can't take it for what it is. I invested emotions into these characters. I knew crazy things would happen but I never thought they would bloody their hands so much for a gory joke. Nor that they would tear apart my investments by sending a parasite through the umbillical cord with which I fed from the movie.
That's why I feel burned after watching.
Burn After Reading
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Nitpicky Moviegoer: The Dark Knight
Now that a few weeks have passed, let's get serious about The Dark Knight. In every nitpicky review that I do, I point out movie flaws that the majority of the world gives no shits about. In this case, judging by the record-breaking sales, absolutely no one cared about the little things- including myself. Only in retrospect, now, a month after the viewing, can I bring back up the details I ignored.
Before I begin, I assume everyone has watched this movie. There will be spoilers.
This review will seem extra picky, because the movie was so good. But, like the director that created it, it isn't perfect. Am I the only one who thought half of Memento was a psychology lecture?
To start off, let's talk about one thing Batman did that was so utterly ridiculous, it strikes deep fear into my heart about the stability and mental resistance of my own mind. The fact that I did not question this impossibility makes me wonder how long I would last if aliens started brainwashing the planet. Could I resist their advanced mind-mushing techniques? I'm not so sure.
About halfway through the movie, Batman extracts a fingerprint originally pressed on a bullet from its bullet hole. (The bullet had been removed from the scene.) It's not even from the original bullet hole, though, he reproduces one - I think - because in some sort of montage-like explanation of the process, he fired five other bullets into similar material to see if the damage matched the damage of the first bullet. He then arbitrarily picked one of the reproductions and... what the fuck am I even talking about? What the fuck was this movie showing me? What the fuck-fuck?
Not only that, the fingerprint wasn't from the Joker, it was from a random guy who lived in some apartment. It was a set-up to get Batman to go to that apartment where decoy sniper fire was set up so that the Joker could assassinate the Mayor from the ground.
The Joker is so fucking smart! He was so intuitive, he knew that Batman was going reconstruct a fingerprint from a shattered plaster wall, leading him to the scene, where he could only helplessly watch the assassination attempt from above. Is there anything else he could have thought of? I mean, Batman could have also released deadly android birds from the rooftops; each honed in on the unholy scent of a man who hasn't washed his hair in three years. That's reasonable.
But wait, there's a loophole here. The reason Batman had to reconstruct the fingerprint from the bullet hole in the wall is because the Joker took the original bullet from the crime scene. He did that so neither Batman nor anyone else could trace it. Yet he still made the fingerprint a decoy?
Another scene confused me even the second time I saw the movie: when Batman and the Joker play chicken. Well, it's sort-of chicken, Batman's on a super-powered motercycle and the Joker is just standing there, and he wants Batman to hit him. It's not really chicken if some guy wants to be hit. Still, Batman chickens out, unable to kill the bad guy, which is appropriate to his comic-book history, so he swerves out of the way and then... crashes? He had so much open room to direct his bike to. I guess he thought too hard about crossing the line he never crosses, and became a nervous wreck.
Come on, how does Batman wreck his bike? And then he lay there in his super-stiff bat suit like a frozen hot dog. I understand his bat suit afforded little movement, but the restriction didn't show when he fought, only when he lay on the ground. Don't you think the director unnecessarily exaggerated his immovability? Those are three of the largest words I've ever used together in a sentence.
Later, Christopher Nolan decides to bring pop conflict into the movie. He brings up the as-of-now highly controversial subject of spying on everyone for everyone's safety. The Big Brother thing. Batman creates a system of SONAR images transmitted from every cell-phone in Gotham so that he can see and hear pretty much everything. It has a great interface, representing Gotham in its entirety on only about 50 TVs, and the program follows whatever you thought you just heard with only a few keyboard strokes. If you look closely, you'll see that one of the screens shows a person in a bathroom- how appropriate to the issue of privacy.
The director asks the question, should we jeopardize the privacy of every person in a city to find a 'terrorist'? Lucius Fox, Batman's trusty assistant, says that he will resign as long as this system is in place, after they get the Joker. Hard to say if he really disagrees. In the end, the voice-tracing, city-imaging, spy web helps them capture the Joker.
So what's Christopher Nolan's conclusion on protecting the privacy of citizens? That privacy can be ignored if the threat is too large. Well, thanks Christopher, you've gotten us nowhere. You've just repeated the same conclusion - and confusion- of everyone involved in this debate. How do we know if a threat is too large? I don't think the government will spend a billion dollars on a cell-phone-based tracking system and then BLOW IT UP after the currently most-wanted terrorist is found. There's always going to be a terrorist, so the system will always be up and running; i.e. voiding our privacy.
So, once again, thank you Christopher Nolan for bringing up a sensitive issue and offering... absolutely nothing.
Close to the end of the movie, Mr. Nolan breaks a scriptwriting rule: never avoid conflict. At the same time, he breaks one of my rules: don't bullshit the audience. In the tense, who-will-blow-up-who, boat scene, he cuts to that huge, rough-as-hell prisoner like four fucking times. Each time, he sneers and looks ugly. I get it, he's going to stand up and cause havoc, take the detonator and blow up the other boat; he doesn't want to die and no one else will follow through. He's the only one mean enough to actually press the button. The time comes and he uses his scary bulk and his understanding of fear and politics to convince the man holding the detonator to give him the detonator. And like the badass he is... he throws it out the window?
This twist is not some 'unforeseen surprise,' it's a lie. Like, I go to the doctor to visit my dying great-grandmother and the doctor tells me she passed away. Of course I believe him. He's a doctor telling me someone died. If he says 'just kidding' it's not like he tricked me, like I'm an idiot for not picking up on it, there's no way I could have known. It's a lie. Films that lie instead of offer clues suck.
Take this puzzle for example: Billy found a blue building block. What color is the building block?
Uhh, blue?
NOPE, ITS PURPLE!
There has to be hints or the game is ruined.
The reason Mr. Nolan concluded this scene like he did was to give audience a ray of hope in a dark movie. Or at least that's what I read in a review, I never thought the film was 'too dark.' I mean, Batman has always been dark and Mr. Nolan does a great job keeping him that way. This scene is a cop out. I know it was rated PG-13, but imagine how crazy it would have been if Batman was holding the Joker by his feet from the top of the unfinished skyscraper; and suddenly one of the boats exploded. That would have been intense. He may have even dropped the Joker, forgetting his anti-killing cree, and then, of course, the Joker would have laughed his way to the pavement. Whether you like my alternate ending or not, don't avoid conflict, scriptwriting 101.
Jim Gordon coming back from the dead? See the previous paragraphs about pointless puzzles.
This movie is the best comic book movie I've ever seen, besides Sin City, which was just like a moving comic book. I LOVE how Christopher Nolan makes so many comic-booky, i.e. corny and unbelievable, remnants of Batman's history make complete sense. Despite the small things I've pointed out, Nolan has achieved greatness by making Batman almost logically exist. He undoubtedly made Two-Face logically exist. The person he loves the most dies as he tells her she'll be all right. He flips his shit. And the face in oil! What a great way to explain Two-Face's charred left side. In the comic book, some mafia thug threw acid on his face in the courtroom, somehow 'coloring within the lines' and magically disfiguring only the left side of his face. Nolan makes it make sense.
And, my God, did Heath Ledger become the Joker.
I have to stop while I'm ahead, these posts are about tearing movies apart, breakin' them down, revealing their true colors! not complimenting them. I must. not. break. down. and describe how awesome this movie was.
Before I begin, I assume everyone has watched this movie. There will be spoilers.
This review will seem extra picky, because the movie was so good. But, like the director that created it, it isn't perfect. Am I the only one who thought half of Memento was a psychology lecture?
To start off, let's talk about one thing Batman did that was so utterly ridiculous, it strikes deep fear into my heart about the stability and mental resistance of my own mind. The fact that I did not question this impossibility makes me wonder how long I would last if aliens started brainwashing the planet. Could I resist their advanced mind-mushing techniques? I'm not so sure.
About halfway through the movie, Batman extracts a fingerprint originally pressed on a bullet from its bullet hole. (The bullet had been removed from the scene.) It's not even from the original bullet hole, though, he reproduces one - I think - because in some sort of montage-like explanation of the process, he fired five other bullets into similar material to see if the damage matched the damage of the first bullet. He then arbitrarily picked one of the reproductions and... what the fuck am I even talking about? What the fuck was this movie showing me? What the fuck-fuck?
Not only that, the fingerprint wasn't from the Joker, it was from a random guy who lived in some apartment. It was a set-up to get Batman to go to that apartment where decoy sniper fire was set up so that the Joker could assassinate the Mayor from the ground.
The Joker is so fucking smart! He was so intuitive, he knew that Batman was going reconstruct a fingerprint from a shattered plaster wall, leading him to the scene, where he could only helplessly watch the assassination attempt from above. Is there anything else he could have thought of? I mean, Batman could have also released deadly android birds from the rooftops; each honed in on the unholy scent of a man who hasn't washed his hair in three years. That's reasonable.
But wait, there's a loophole here. The reason Batman had to reconstruct the fingerprint from the bullet hole in the wall is because the Joker took the original bullet from the crime scene. He did that so neither Batman nor anyone else could trace it. Yet he still made the fingerprint a decoy?
Another scene confused me even the second time I saw the movie: when Batman and the Joker play chicken. Well, it's sort-of chicken, Batman's on a super-powered motercycle and the Joker is just standing there, and he wants Batman to hit him. It's not really chicken if some guy wants to be hit. Still, Batman chickens out, unable to kill the bad guy, which is appropriate to his comic-book history, so he swerves out of the way and then... crashes? He had so much open room to direct his bike to. I guess he thought too hard about crossing the line he never crosses, and became a nervous wreck.
Come on, how does Batman wreck his bike? And then he lay there in his super-stiff bat suit like a frozen hot dog. I understand his bat suit afforded little movement, but the restriction didn't show when he fought, only when he lay on the ground. Don't you think the director unnecessarily exaggerated his immovability? Those are three of the largest words I've ever used together in a sentence.
Later, Christopher Nolan decides to bring pop conflict into the movie. He brings up the as-of-now highly controversial subject of spying on everyone for everyone's safety. The Big Brother thing. Batman creates a system of SONAR images transmitted from every cell-phone in Gotham so that he can see and hear pretty much everything. It has a great interface, representing Gotham in its entirety on only about 50 TVs, and the program follows whatever you thought you just heard with only a few keyboard strokes. If you look closely, you'll see that one of the screens shows a person in a bathroom- how appropriate to the issue of privacy.
The director asks the question, should we jeopardize the privacy of every person in a city to find a 'terrorist'? Lucius Fox, Batman's trusty assistant, says that he will resign as long as this system is in place, after they get the Joker. Hard to say if he really disagrees. In the end, the voice-tracing, city-imaging, spy web helps them capture the Joker.
So what's Christopher Nolan's conclusion on protecting the privacy of citizens? That privacy can be ignored if the threat is too large. Well, thanks Christopher, you've gotten us nowhere. You've just repeated the same conclusion - and confusion- of everyone involved in this debate. How do we know if a threat is too large? I don't think the government will spend a billion dollars on a cell-phone-based tracking system and then BLOW IT UP after the currently most-wanted terrorist is found. There's always going to be a terrorist, so the system will always be up and running; i.e. voiding our privacy.
So, once again, thank you Christopher Nolan for bringing up a sensitive issue and offering... absolutely nothing.
Close to the end of the movie, Mr. Nolan breaks a scriptwriting rule: never avoid conflict. At the same time, he breaks one of my rules: don't bullshit the audience. In the tense, who-will-blow-up-who, boat scene, he cuts to that huge, rough-as-hell prisoner like four fucking times. Each time, he sneers and looks ugly. I get it, he's going to stand up and cause havoc, take the detonator and blow up the other boat; he doesn't want to die and no one else will follow through. He's the only one mean enough to actually press the button. The time comes and he uses his scary bulk and his understanding of fear and politics to convince the man holding the detonator to give him the detonator. And like the badass he is... he throws it out the window?
This twist is not some 'unforeseen surprise,' it's a lie. Like, I go to the doctor to visit my dying great-grandmother and the doctor tells me she passed away. Of course I believe him. He's a doctor telling me someone died. If he says 'just kidding' it's not like he tricked me, like I'm an idiot for not picking up on it, there's no way I could have known. It's a lie. Films that lie instead of offer clues suck.
Take this puzzle for example: Billy found a blue building block. What color is the building block?
Uhh, blue?
NOPE, ITS PURPLE!
There has to be hints or the game is ruined.
The reason Mr. Nolan concluded this scene like he did was to give audience a ray of hope in a dark movie. Or at least that's what I read in a review, I never thought the film was 'too dark.' I mean, Batman has always been dark and Mr. Nolan does a great job keeping him that way. This scene is a cop out. I know it was rated PG-13, but imagine how crazy it would have been if Batman was holding the Joker by his feet from the top of the unfinished skyscraper; and suddenly one of the boats exploded. That would have been intense. He may have even dropped the Joker, forgetting his anti-killing cree, and then, of course, the Joker would have laughed his way to the pavement. Whether you like my alternate ending or not, don't avoid conflict, scriptwriting 101.
Jim Gordon coming back from the dead? See the previous paragraphs about pointless puzzles.
This movie is the best comic book movie I've ever seen, besides Sin City, which was just like a moving comic book. I LOVE how Christopher Nolan makes so many comic-booky, i.e. corny and unbelievable, remnants of Batman's history make complete sense. Despite the small things I've pointed out, Nolan has achieved greatness by making Batman almost logically exist. He undoubtedly made Two-Face logically exist. The person he loves the most dies as he tells her she'll be all right. He flips his shit. And the face in oil! What a great way to explain Two-Face's charred left side. In the comic book, some mafia thug threw acid on his face in the courtroom, somehow 'coloring within the lines' and magically disfiguring only the left side of his face. Nolan makes it make sense.
And, my God, did Heath Ledger become the Joker.
I have to stop while I'm ahead, these posts are about tearing movies apart, breakin' them down, revealing their true colors! not complimenting them. I must. not. break. down. and describe how awesome this movie was.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Nitpicky Moviegoer: Vicky and Christina visit Barcelona
Woody Allen tells everyone that the life of an artist is better than your life. Artists are erotic and beautiful. They paint during the day and fuck in the evening. They live in large houses in the most beautiful parts of Europe, even without any apparent source of money.
He wants us to know that we all have doubts about settling down into a stable relationship. The better choice is to live free, take chances with love, even if love grew from a one-night stand with someone you absolutely hated the day before.
People with knowledge of the internet, people that plan ahead, and are successful at business make for a boring relationship. Who needs these new advances in technology. Maria Elena, played by Penelope Cruz, deters Christina, played by Scarlett Johansson, from using a digital camera for her photographs. She gives her a film camera, instead. It's all about the dark room.
You know what? Fuck you Woody Allen. Take your pretentious, doubt-causing, home-wrecking, PG-13, anarchic love home to your wife - who happens to be your sixth spouse, former stepdaughter, and 35 years younger than you.
This movie is your steamy, dreamy life-story. With included fantasies of a third partner, who, may or may not really exist your life. It's not that I'm jealous you can do this. Art. Sex. All Day. It's that you make a movie about it, almost bragging, and if not, at least trying to convince the rest of the world that this lifestyle works; it's what we're missing from our life. Well, it's not. And it doesn't work unless you're super rich.
What pisses me off is the way it ends. Doug, Vicky's husband, walks off the screen toward the audience with Vicky and Christina following a few steps behind. The narrator, who sounds completely out of place through out the whole film, sadly explains that Vicky will be pursuing her life with her husband. The one she cheated on and wanted to leave for the sexy painter, Juan Antonio.
It compels the audience to say "Aw. She shouldn't do that. It's not what she really wants. She wants a fiery love affair with an artist who always seems to need a girlfriend, as charming as he is." The audience thinks, "I have doubts about my relationship. I'm a lot like Vicky. Maybe I should do something daring. There's this really hot guy at work who always looks at me. Hmm."
As for the narrator, he should not exist. He's in the film for two reasons: to make it quirky like Wes Anderson and to explain all the stuff old-man Allen left out. For example, the audience would never guess that Vicky and Christina are best friends unless we are told that. They don't act like best friends. They don't look like best friends. They are completely different from each other and disagree over and over through out the film. They only hang out in the beginning. Sometimes you wonder if they even practiced their lines together. It's stupid.
Woody Allen's characterization of Doug, Vicky's husband, baffles me. Vicky 'loves' him and wants to marry him because he offers a stable future. Most of his traits degrade his stereotype. He has a hard time understanding free-love and the three-way relationship between Christina, Maria Elena, and Juan Antonio. He mainly talks business at the dinner table. He works for 'Global Enterprises.' COME ON. WHAT THE FUCK IS GLOBAL ENTERPRISES. COULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT OF ANYTHING LESS ORIGINAL.
He is also shorter than Vicky, unlike the dashing Juan Antonio. It's very flattering. He is less romantic in bed. He awkwardly initiates sex, while Juan Antonio is so natural.
But Woody Allen fucked up, I assume. I mean, he gave Doug all these negative characteristics and ended the movie on a depressing note about Vicky's future. So, Doug's virtues almost seem like a mistake. He is deemed uncreative and unadventurous, yet he finds a way to leave work and fly to Barcelona early. His idea is to elope in the beautiful city of Barcelona and still have an extravagant wedding in New York City when they return to the States.
Towards the end of the movie, he thinks of creative ideas for their house and for gifts while they browse the street market.
He is in tune with Vicky's feelings about half of the time. He notices Vicky's emotional distress over the phone and in most conversation, but seems oblivious to her sadness after they marry. He hardly questions Vicky's bullet wound.
Vicky is such a bitch, anyway. She bitches about Juan Antonio for the first half of the movie and complains about lost love throughout the second. She's one of those people you want to pull aside by the arm and say "Shut the fuck Up" to.
I feel that Woody Allen just sped through the script. Well, he is one of the most 'productive' filmmakers alive.
--
Positive Notes:
Penelope Cruz does a great job. Just like Volver, she plays a Spanish drama queen perfectly. And it isn't annoying, it's really exciting.
I liked how the love triangle between Christina, Juan Antonio, and Maria Elena progressed and started to believe in it. Maybe a relationship like that is possible. Just not with two men and one girl. That would be weird. And not look as good on film.
To be honest, I'm glad I saw it. It was my first Woody Allen film. It had a more distinct flavor than the majority of Hollywood movies, but I won't call him an auteur.
I just wish that some filmmakers wouldn't make films about their opinions. Mr. Allen, create a story, don't gloat about your lifestyle and try and persuade preteen girls to emulate it. And please, learn to focus your camera.
He wants us to know that we all have doubts about settling down into a stable relationship. The better choice is to live free, take chances with love, even if love grew from a one-night stand with someone you absolutely hated the day before.
People with knowledge of the internet, people that plan ahead, and are successful at business make for a boring relationship. Who needs these new advances in technology. Maria Elena, played by Penelope Cruz, deters Christina, played by Scarlett Johansson, from using a digital camera for her photographs. She gives her a film camera, instead. It's all about the dark room.
You know what? Fuck you Woody Allen. Take your pretentious, doubt-causing, home-wrecking, PG-13, anarchic love home to your wife - who happens to be your sixth spouse, former stepdaughter, and 35 years younger than you.
This movie is your steamy, dreamy life-story. With included fantasies of a third partner, who, may or may not really exist your life. It's not that I'm jealous you can do this. Art. Sex. All Day. It's that you make a movie about it, almost bragging, and if not, at least trying to convince the rest of the world that this lifestyle works; it's what we're missing from our life. Well, it's not. And it doesn't work unless you're super rich.
What pisses me off is the way it ends. Doug, Vicky's husband, walks off the screen toward the audience with Vicky and Christina following a few steps behind. The narrator, who sounds completely out of place through out the whole film, sadly explains that Vicky will be pursuing her life with her husband. The one she cheated on and wanted to leave for the sexy painter, Juan Antonio.
It compels the audience to say "Aw. She shouldn't do that. It's not what she really wants. She wants a fiery love affair with an artist who always seems to need a girlfriend, as charming as he is." The audience thinks, "I have doubts about my relationship. I'm a lot like Vicky. Maybe I should do something daring. There's this really hot guy at work who always looks at me. Hmm."
As for the narrator, he should not exist. He's in the film for two reasons: to make it quirky like Wes Anderson and to explain all the stuff old-man Allen left out. For example, the audience would never guess that Vicky and Christina are best friends unless we are told that. They don't act like best friends. They don't look like best friends. They are completely different from each other and disagree over and over through out the film. They only hang out in the beginning. Sometimes you wonder if they even practiced their lines together. It's stupid.
Woody Allen's characterization of Doug, Vicky's husband, baffles me. Vicky 'loves' him and wants to marry him because he offers a stable future. Most of his traits degrade his stereotype. He has a hard time understanding free-love and the three-way relationship between Christina, Maria Elena, and Juan Antonio. He mainly talks business at the dinner table. He works for 'Global Enterprises.' COME ON. WHAT THE FUCK IS GLOBAL ENTERPRISES. COULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT OF ANYTHING LESS ORIGINAL.
He is also shorter than Vicky, unlike the dashing Juan Antonio. It's very flattering. He is less romantic in bed. He awkwardly initiates sex, while Juan Antonio is so natural.
But Woody Allen fucked up, I assume. I mean, he gave Doug all these negative characteristics and ended the movie on a depressing note about Vicky's future. So, Doug's virtues almost seem like a mistake. He is deemed uncreative and unadventurous, yet he finds a way to leave work and fly to Barcelona early. His idea is to elope in the beautiful city of Barcelona and still have an extravagant wedding in New York City when they return to the States.
Towards the end of the movie, he thinks of creative ideas for their house and for gifts while they browse the street market.
He is in tune with Vicky's feelings about half of the time. He notices Vicky's emotional distress over the phone and in most conversation, but seems oblivious to her sadness after they marry. He hardly questions Vicky's bullet wound.
Vicky is such a bitch, anyway. She bitches about Juan Antonio for the first half of the movie and complains about lost love throughout the second. She's one of those people you want to pull aside by the arm and say "Shut the fuck Up" to.
I feel that Woody Allen just sped through the script. Well, he is one of the most 'productive' filmmakers alive.
--
Positive Notes:
Penelope Cruz does a great job. Just like Volver, she plays a Spanish drama queen perfectly. And it isn't annoying, it's really exciting.
I liked how the love triangle between Christina, Juan Antonio, and Maria Elena progressed and started to believe in it. Maybe a relationship like that is possible. Just not with two men and one girl. That would be weird. And not look as good on film.
To be honest, I'm glad I saw it. It was my first Woody Allen film. It had a more distinct flavor than the majority of Hollywood movies, but I won't call him an auteur.
I just wish that some filmmakers wouldn't make films about their opinions. Mr. Allen, create a story, don't gloat about your lifestyle and try and persuade preteen girls to emulate it. And please, learn to focus your camera.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Read it and weep, WALL-E
I'm going to make this post short since my last post also happened to be a ranting review - and it was very long. Plus, no one wants to get labeled a meany, do they?
WALL-E was cool, sometimes funny, mostly mellow, and sort-of thought provoking. I remember thinking to myself, "Why would a ship full of lazy, overweight people who have had nothing but fun and free food want to go back to Earth: the dumpster. I correct myself, WALL-E made neat little piles of all the trash in the world, except for the garbage that littered the outside of his trailer.
Speaking of a futuristic world filled with garbage and advertising - anyone see Idiocracy?
Writing the latter latter paragraph made me think of something else. Why were there so many advertisements on the ship? Those people have been on a cruise for 700 years. I don't think money is an issue. (Everything was free, right?)
I'm going to compare audience reactions to things in the movie to audience reactions to those same things in real life.
WALL-E is a sensitive, nerdy robot with low self-esteem.
Real Life: Shut up, WALL-E. Keep it to yourself. Need a hanky?
Movie Life: Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
EVE is a quick tempered, trigger-finger that cares more about her job than a relationship.
Real Life: WALL-E, this is an intervention. We're here to tell you that if you don't break up with that crazy woman, she'll mentally destroy you. You'll be an abused, slave husband for the rest of your life.
Movie: LOL Did you see her nearly disintegrate WALL-E? This is amazing.
To put it simply, both of our protagonists are bitches.
The next paragraph contains a spoiler. But honestly, if you've seen any other movie before, just apply your knowledge and this won't ruin anything.
AT THE END of the movie... (That was to scare off those people that really don't want to read a spoiler but continue to read naturally). At the end of the movie, everyone in the theater got quiet and a little teary-eyed. WALL-E had just been crushed by the plant hibernation stand and wasn't moving. He may have been dead... I had mildly enjoyed the movie until this point, but now, I started sinking back into my chair. I started getting a little angry - I'm short tempered when it comes to these things. My head felt heavy, like I had too much to drink, and my fingers started clinching subconsciously.
It took about 10 minutes for him to come back to life. That's a long time when you aren't suspending your disbelief. Did you really think Pixar was going to kill our cute, whiny protagonist at the end? Of course not, it wouldn't be qualified as a family movie. Instead it would be another emotionally distressing Indie flick. Once you realize that, it's just a waiting game.
It wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't just gotten out of Hancock, in which the exact same thing happens.
Here's my bet. List the last 10 movies you saw. I bet 5 of them had endings like this.
WALL-E was cool, sometimes funny, mostly mellow, and sort-of thought provoking. I remember thinking to myself, "Why would a ship full of lazy, overweight people who have had nothing but fun and free food want to go back to Earth: the dumpster. I correct myself, WALL-E made neat little piles of all the trash in the world, except for the garbage that littered the outside of his trailer.
Speaking of a futuristic world filled with garbage and advertising - anyone see Idiocracy?
Writing the latter latter paragraph made me think of something else. Why were there so many advertisements on the ship? Those people have been on a cruise for 700 years. I don't think money is an issue. (Everything was free, right?)
I'm going to compare audience reactions to things in the movie to audience reactions to those same things in real life.
WALL-E is a sensitive, nerdy robot with low self-esteem.
Real Life: Shut up, WALL-E. Keep it to yourself. Need a hanky?
Movie Life: Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
EVE is a quick tempered, trigger-finger that cares more about her job than a relationship.
Real Life: WALL-E, this is an intervention. We're here to tell you that if you don't break up with that crazy woman, she'll mentally destroy you. You'll be an abused, slave husband for the rest of your life.
Movie: LOL Did you see her nearly disintegrate WALL-E? This is amazing.
To put it simply, both of our protagonists are bitches.
The next paragraph contains a spoiler. But honestly, if you've seen any other movie before, just apply your knowledge and this won't ruin anything.
AT THE END of the movie... (That was to scare off those people that really don't want to read a spoiler but continue to read naturally). At the end of the movie, everyone in the theater got quiet and a little teary-eyed. WALL-E had just been crushed by the plant hibernation stand and wasn't moving. He may have been dead... I had mildly enjoyed the movie until this point, but now, I started sinking back into my chair. I started getting a little angry - I'm short tempered when it comes to these things. My head felt heavy, like I had too much to drink, and my fingers started clinching subconsciously.
It took about 10 minutes for him to come back to life. That's a long time when you aren't suspending your disbelief. Did you really think Pixar was going to kill our cute, whiny protagonist at the end? Of course not, it wouldn't be qualified as a family movie. Instead it would be another emotionally distressing Indie flick. Once you realize that, it's just a waiting game.
It wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't just gotten out of Hancock, in which the exact same thing happens.
Here's my bet. List the last 10 movies you saw. I bet 5 of them had endings like this.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Diablo III Cinematic Trailer
Every now and then you see an epic movie or trailer, or epic game trailer, and it doesn't matter what actually happens in the movie or game, but they bust out the Indian Hymnal / African Tribal music mix. Nothing works better.
Here is the word for word script of the Diablo III cinematic trailer just released on Blizzard's site.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/
"It has been said..."
Warped buzzing starts up in the background. The begining of our cultural experience.
"That in the end of all things..."
More convuluted snake dancing flute music.
"You find a new beginning..." (roll eyes)
hhheeeeeeeeeEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH
"But as the shadow crawls once again across our world"
Crow squawk.
A little bongo tapping.
HHHEEYHEYHHYYEEEEE
"And the stench of terror drifts on a bitter wind"
UUHHHOOUUHOOYYEEAAAAHEEEYYYY
"People pray for strength and guidancOOOOAA HEEYYAAYYYAAA
Heavy tribal bongos come in
"They should pray for the mercy of a quick death"
OOHHEEEEYYY HEEEEYYYYYYYY
"I've seen what the darkness hides." (sigh)
HEEEEYYYyaaaaeeeeeeyaaa
(BUMBU BUMBU BU)
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEAAAAAA
Uhheyheyheyheyheyheyheyheyheyhey
UHHYAAHAYHAYHAYHAYHahayahehayhayeakdhkanfkjnaahsiuhiw
new girl, breathing hard "I... think it's safe here..." (You've got to be kidding me)
I'm not going to rant. I could, but, really, who can't. No one likes cliches, I don't need to go into it. This shit blew my brain.
Here is the word for word script of the Diablo III cinematic trailer just released on Blizzard's site.
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/
"It has been said..."
Warped buzzing starts up in the background. The begining of our cultural experience.
"That in the end of all things..."
More convuluted snake dancing flute music.
"You find a new beginning..." (roll eyes)
hhheeeeeeeeeEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHH
"But as the shadow crawls once again across our world"
Crow squawk.
A little bongo tapping.
HHHEEYHEYHHYYEEEEE
"And the stench of terror drifts on a bitter wind"
UUHHHOOUUHOOYYEEAAAAHEEEYYYY
"People pray for strength and guidancOOOOAA HEEYYAAYYYAAA
Heavy tribal bongos come in
"They should pray for the mercy of a quick death"
OOHHEEEEYYY HEEEEYYYYYYYY
"I've seen what the darkness hides." (sigh)
HEEEEYYYyaaaaeeeeeeyaaa
(BUMBU BUMBU BU)
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEAAAAAA
Uhheyheyheyheyheyheyheyheyheyhey
UHHYAAHAYHAYHAYHAYHahayahehayhayeakdhkanfkjnaahsiuhiw
new girl, breathing hard "I... think it's safe here..." (You've got to be kidding me)
I'm not going to rant. I could, but, really, who can't. No one likes cliches, I don't need to go into it. This shit blew my brain.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Ska-Doosh
I saw Kung Fu Panda the other night and loved it. What can I say? Ska-Doosh.
But, after I was out, I decided to think more critically about it. I've stopped doing that so much while I watch a movie; I would never enjoy movies again if I did. I realized that I don't like the messages it gives to kids, to anyone. I see movies like this all the time that reinforce a very common, wrong, idea in America. That it is easy to be on top.
Shows like American Idol feed on the belief that celebrities, professional athletes, and "rich" people become who they are overnight. People get in the mindset that naturally talented people are the ones that reap rewards. It's a de-motivator and it's completely wrong. Anyone can "make it." They just have to do it.
That's my problem. I see an excellent film or I play an excellent video game and I get inspired. I whip out my notebook and write down some cool ideas. Sometimes, I even get to my computer or camera and start making something. But, after a day or two I realize that it looks like complete crap and that I do not have near enough talent to finish it the way I had imagined. So, I do this once every two or three weeks.
By that rate, I'll be good by the time I'm 50. That's depressing. Easy solution, though, right? Just do it. The only thing standing between me and my dream job is time, commitment, and practice; hence this blog to practice my writing.
Back to Ska-Doosh. Jack Black plays a panda named Po that loves Kung-Fu but has never practiced it. He looks up to the five Kung-Fu warriors that live in town, in a dojo at the top of a giant hill with about a million stairs. Ok, I just about started detailing the whole plot. Let me summarize.
(Spoilers)
Po gets chosen to be the Dragon Warrior by accident. The dojo's master explains that there are, of course, no such things as accidents. But, what's important is that he was a nobody and he got chosen to be the Dragon Warrior.
He doesn't know Kung-Fu, yet, and the five masters he looked up to, who were vying for the chance to be the Dragon Warrior hate him. He's no good.
Next. The dojo's, uh, sub-master, can't figure out how to train Po. But Po loves to eat and, apparently, can do fantastic physical feats in order to get to it. The sub-master walks in one day as Po bouncing around the kitchen, reaching the highest cupboards and punching through wooden cabinets to reach food. It hits him, Po already has the talent. And he can be taught Kung-Fu with food as a motivator. If Po had not had this hidden physical greatness connected to food, the sub-master may havce never come up with anything. He didn't use creativity, perseverence, or trial and error when thinking of ways to train Po. He just walked around with his head down until he stumbled upon something already there. That doesn't teach anyone anything.
Later, Po opens the sacred Dragon Scroll that holds the legendary secrets to become the Dragon Warrior. But it's blank. Confused, he gives up.
His father, a noodle expert, sells a noodle dish with a secret ingredient. While Po is moping, his father finally reveals to him the secret ingredient: nothing. His noodles were delicious, but people made believed they were even more special because of the supposed secret ingredient. I like the message. Po applies what he learns and realizes the Dragon Warrior is in himself.
Applying knowledge is nice. Figuring things out yourself is better.
We can't be taught that if we wait around long enough the answer to all of our problems will just appear. That's called apathy.
Also, apparently learning Kung Fu only takes a day.
I mean, it was a satisfying scene. They all are. There's one in almost every family movie with a little fighting to be learned. Its a usually creative montage where a protagonist goes from being a complete klutz to a master in about 5 minutes. It's true, though, I love it. I enjoy seeing every mishap in the first two and half minutes and every bullseye in the latter.
Anyways. I liked the movie. I just want movies to stop sending these helpless messages to audiences - as if we aren't unmotivated enough.
But, after I was out, I decided to think more critically about it. I've stopped doing that so much while I watch a movie; I would never enjoy movies again if I did. I realized that I don't like the messages it gives to kids, to anyone. I see movies like this all the time that reinforce a very common, wrong, idea in America. That it is easy to be on top.
Shows like American Idol feed on the belief that celebrities, professional athletes, and "rich" people become who they are overnight. People get in the mindset that naturally talented people are the ones that reap rewards. It's a de-motivator and it's completely wrong. Anyone can "make it." They just have to do it.
That's my problem. I see an excellent film or I play an excellent video game and I get inspired. I whip out my notebook and write down some cool ideas. Sometimes, I even get to my computer or camera and start making something. But, after a day or two I realize that it looks like complete crap and that I do not have near enough talent to finish it the way I had imagined. So, I do this once every two or three weeks.
By that rate, I'll be good by the time I'm 50. That's depressing. Easy solution, though, right? Just do it. The only thing standing between me and my dream job is time, commitment, and practice; hence this blog to practice my writing.
Back to Ska-Doosh. Jack Black plays a panda named Po that loves Kung-Fu but has never practiced it. He looks up to the five Kung-Fu warriors that live in town, in a dojo at the top of a giant hill with about a million stairs. Ok, I just about started detailing the whole plot. Let me summarize.
(Spoilers)
Po gets chosen to be the Dragon Warrior by accident. The dojo's master explains that there are, of course, no such things as accidents. But, what's important is that he was a nobody and he got chosen to be the Dragon Warrior.
He doesn't know Kung-Fu, yet, and the five masters he looked up to, who were vying for the chance to be the Dragon Warrior hate him. He's no good.
Next. The dojo's, uh, sub-master, can't figure out how to train Po. But Po loves to eat and, apparently, can do fantastic physical feats in order to get to it. The sub-master walks in one day as Po bouncing around the kitchen, reaching the highest cupboards and punching through wooden cabinets to reach food. It hits him, Po already has the talent. And he can be taught Kung-Fu with food as a motivator. If Po had not had this hidden physical greatness connected to food, the sub-master may havce never come up with anything. He didn't use creativity, perseverence, or trial and error when thinking of ways to train Po. He just walked around with his head down until he stumbled upon something already there. That doesn't teach anyone anything.
Later, Po opens the sacred Dragon Scroll that holds the legendary secrets to become the Dragon Warrior. But it's blank. Confused, he gives up.
His father, a noodle expert, sells a noodle dish with a secret ingredient. While Po is moping, his father finally reveals to him the secret ingredient: nothing. His noodles were delicious, but people made believed they were even more special because of the supposed secret ingredient. I like the message. Po applies what he learns and realizes the Dragon Warrior is in himself.
Applying knowledge is nice. Figuring things out yourself is better.
We can't be taught that if we wait around long enough the answer to all of our problems will just appear. That's called apathy.
Also, apparently learning Kung Fu only takes a day.
I mean, it was a satisfying scene. They all are. There's one in almost every family movie with a little fighting to be learned. Its a usually creative montage where a protagonist goes from being a complete klutz to a master in about 5 minutes. It's true, though, I love it. I enjoy seeing every mishap in the first two and half minutes and every bullseye in the latter.
Anyways. I liked the movie. I just want movies to stop sending these helpless messages to audiences - as if we aren't unmotivated enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
