As referenced in a previous post, one of my most personally anticipated movies of the first half of 2007 was The Host, or Gwoemul. To give a little background, as few probably know about this movie, The Host was the highest grossing movie in South Korean history, coming out in 2006. The movie is basically advertised as a modern Godzillia movie with a mutant-ish beast rampaging a city.
Despite, or possibly because of my expectations, I was pretty disappointed, but not for an expected reason. The movie was not too stupid-monster-movie to enjoy but was in fact, probably too little of that. The movie ended up suffering from being in an identity crisis. All at the same time it tried to be a monster movie, have a family message, make weird social commentaries about South Korea, be a political commentary on S. Korea, be a political commentary on the United States, and be kind of conspiracy theory-ish, all the while making fun of itself at every opportunity.
Basically, this was just too much for one movie. You'd start to get into the political thriller/commentary part of the movie about the harsh control exhibited by the S. Korean and especially U.S. government. Then, you'd be presented with (what I hope was a failed attempt at) comic relief of a grieving family literally falling all over each other and fighting in grief. Or, you'd see the father of the main family describing the importance of family after escaping the clutches of government officials and the monster, and then see that his speech put all his children to sleep. It just didn't really make a lot of sense.
Easily the best part of the movie was the monster itself. As monster movies go, what was impressive about this was that it showed the creature almost immediately. That first scene of attack is definitely the best part of the movie. The whole theater immediately got jumpy and excited. Unfortunately there wasn't much opportunity to see the monster just kind of going at it. In general, it was a good mix of being a pretty new and creative looking monster, so but not so over the top or large (was basically the size of like a Triceratops; yes i just referenced a dinosaur for size) that it wasn't stupid looking.
Overall, worth seeing for the monster and some quick entertainment, but will be almost certainly be confused when you walk out of the theater.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Movie Review: Wild Hogs
So I'm potentially embarrassed admitting that I saw this movie. I saw it as it was the only movie that fit into the available time but ended up being pretty decent. Overall, it was an above average low-browish comedy with some mediocre writing, decent gags, and good concepts.
What certainly carried the movie was its acting. If you're not aware, some how this movie managed to get the cast of John Travolta, Tim Allen, William H Macy, Martin Lawrence, Ray Liotta, Marissa Tomei, and Peter Fonda. With a different cast this movie probably would have been terrible. Travolta was very good, as was Macy expectedly. Surprisingly very good was Ray Liotta who pulled off a crazed biker gang leader for much of the 2nd half of the movie.
Now, I don't mean to kid anybody. The movie was a cheap comedy. Most of the stuff I didn't find laugh out loud funny (putting me in a minority within the theater) as it was birds (or bird shit) flying into the actors faces, and seeing a bull launch Tim Allen into the air. As much as I knew they were all cheap stunts you kind of got caught up in it all by the end, and were ready to embrace the movie as just a gag comedy. Definitely don't go run out and see the movie, but if you've got nothing to do, it will entertain you for an hour and a half.
I've developed an interesting theory on this movie after seeing it. I was genuinely confused before and after why the cast agreed to do this kind of movie, and some have such minor parts in it. My theory, completely without founding or evidence is that either most or all of the actors are friends with the writer/director so agreed to have bit parts. Second, that its some kind of backlash from the what I'll call the "Self-Declared Cool Kids in Hollywood Ocean's Eleven Crowd". Maybe these guys felt left out from making those kind of big ensemble movies and wanted to play to a different interest and demographic by making their own movie.
Either way, was surprised on the upside by Wild Hogs.
What certainly carried the movie was its acting. If you're not aware, some how this movie managed to get the cast of John Travolta, Tim Allen, William H Macy, Martin Lawrence, Ray Liotta, Marissa Tomei, and Peter Fonda. With a different cast this movie probably would have been terrible. Travolta was very good, as was Macy expectedly. Surprisingly very good was Ray Liotta who pulled off a crazed biker gang leader for much of the 2nd half of the movie.
Now, I don't mean to kid anybody. The movie was a cheap comedy. Most of the stuff I didn't find laugh out loud funny (putting me in a minority within the theater) as it was birds (or bird shit) flying into the actors faces, and seeing a bull launch Tim Allen into the air. As much as I knew they were all cheap stunts you kind of got caught up in it all by the end, and were ready to embrace the movie as just a gag comedy. Definitely don't go run out and see the movie, but if you've got nothing to do, it will entertain you for an hour and a half.
I've developed an interesting theory on this movie after seeing it. I was genuinely confused before and after why the cast agreed to do this kind of movie, and some have such minor parts in it. My theory, completely without founding or evidence is that either most or all of the actors are friends with the writer/director so agreed to have bit parts. Second, that its some kind of backlash from the what I'll call the "Self-Declared Cool Kids in Hollywood Ocean's Eleven Crowd". Maybe these guys felt left out from making those kind of big ensemble movies and wanted to play to a different interest and demographic by making their own movie.
Either way, was surprised on the upside by Wild Hogs.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Movie Review: The 300
So I saw the 300 last week at the midnight show on the Thursday night. I was with a very large group so I immediately had the impression of about 20 or so people of the movie. I probably enjoyed the movie the least out of the entire group.
What was good about the movie was exactly what was supposed to be good: the action sequences, some of the creatures and the grand battles going on. For example, one of the opening battle shots just depicts the phalanx driving forward by pushing through masses of Persian soldiers. This was an extremely well done sequence and as an added bonus was actually how those soldiers were so good. One of the other good battle shots was when the Persian archers fired a massive number of arrows at the Spartans. The depiction of actually blotting out the sun was excellent as were all the arrows then falling on and around the 300 soldiers.
In general, the visual effects were pretty good. The slow-to-quick stabbings or decapitatings that ended with splotches of blood were really well done...the first time you saw them. Also surprisingly decent were some of the lines. Probably the best line in the whole movie was the "then we'll fight in the shade" line. There were a couple of others that at least showed that there was a human brain behind the screenplay.
There were three main weaknesses in my opinion that led this to be a mediocre to Ok action movie rather than a very good action movie (wasn't getting past that level no matter what). First, the battle sequences were too short a percentage of the movie. The first 60 or so minutes of the movie were not at all action-filled and in fact kind of dragged on. Then, in the midst of the battle you're brought back to the capital for a less than thoroughly exciting subplot. If the movie was 1:30 of fighting it definitely would have been better. In addition, they would have been able to expand some of the potentially more impressive enemies (like the war elephants, or dinosaur rhinoceros thing) that were only in like 30 seconds of the movie.
Second, the battles scenes they did have were all exactly alike. As I said the slow-then-fast stabbings and attacks were really impressive to see the first time, but by the 10th minute of it and 1000th guy killed, I had seen enough of it. If you're priding yourself on being a visually stimulating action movie, you've got to mix up the stimulation to a larger degree. Throw in some different tactics, or at least show each kill somewhat differently.
Third, the writing and acting were just shockingly hollow. There were lots of attempts for the Spartans to give speeches talking about how great democracy was and how proud they were to defend it. I'm impressed and taken with that type of movie-speech as easy as any person i've ever met and none of them worked on me. Part of the problem was that you never bought the characters were fighting for any reason other than they liked killing things and dying with honor, not for any democratic reason related to rights. Moreover, most of the writing was a joke. Some scenes have no other explanation than they actually were seeking comic relief (but seemed like they were just poorly written) like the sex scene or others.
Overall, it was an Ok action movie, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't have much interest in seeing it again, which doesn't speak well for the visual effects and would almost certainly not buy it, given the shallow plot and lines. Worth seeing once, but don't expect to be impressed.
What was good about the movie was exactly what was supposed to be good: the action sequences, some of the creatures and the grand battles going on. For example, one of the opening battle shots just depicts the phalanx driving forward by pushing through masses of Persian soldiers. This was an extremely well done sequence and as an added bonus was actually how those soldiers were so good. One of the other good battle shots was when the Persian archers fired a massive number of arrows at the Spartans. The depiction of actually blotting out the sun was excellent as were all the arrows then falling on and around the 300 soldiers.
In general, the visual effects were pretty good. The slow-to-quick stabbings or decapitatings that ended with splotches of blood were really well done...the first time you saw them. Also surprisingly decent were some of the lines. Probably the best line in the whole movie was the "then we'll fight in the shade" line. There were a couple of others that at least showed that there was a human brain behind the screenplay.
There were three main weaknesses in my opinion that led this to be a mediocre to Ok action movie rather than a very good action movie (wasn't getting past that level no matter what). First, the battle sequences were too short a percentage of the movie. The first 60 or so minutes of the movie were not at all action-filled and in fact kind of dragged on. Then, in the midst of the battle you're brought back to the capital for a less than thoroughly exciting subplot. If the movie was 1:30 of fighting it definitely would have been better. In addition, they would have been able to expand some of the potentially more impressive enemies (like the war elephants, or dinosaur rhinoceros thing) that were only in like 30 seconds of the movie.
Second, the battles scenes they did have were all exactly alike. As I said the slow-then-fast stabbings and attacks were really impressive to see the first time, but by the 10th minute of it and 1000th guy killed, I had seen enough of it. If you're priding yourself on being a visually stimulating action movie, you've got to mix up the stimulation to a larger degree. Throw in some different tactics, or at least show each kill somewhat differently.
Third, the writing and acting were just shockingly hollow. There were lots of attempts for the Spartans to give speeches talking about how great democracy was and how proud they were to defend it. I'm impressed and taken with that type of movie-speech as easy as any person i've ever met and none of them worked on me. Part of the problem was that you never bought the characters were fighting for any reason other than they liked killing things and dying with honor, not for any democratic reason related to rights. Moreover, most of the writing was a joke. Some scenes have no other explanation than they actually were seeking comic relief (but seemed like they were just poorly written) like the sex scene or others.
Overall, it was an Ok action movie, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't have much interest in seeing it again, which doesn't speak well for the visual effects and would almost certainly not buy it, given the shallow plot and lines. Worth seeing once, but don't expect to be impressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)