Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts

8.12.14

IHAO on ... a bunch of movies!! - 26 Reviews

Hello everyone! 

Time is an enemy to everyone who is trying to do anything important.  Or at least time-sensitive.   I love being able to write reviews for everyone about everything, current, old, wrestling, television, just on everything, as well as writing all the sillier or more intricate reviews, like the Arbitrary Numbers and the Fantasy Bookings.  But that leaves very little time for me to be able to actually cover everything.  I can’t put out two reviews a day, because that is too much to ask you folks to read.  And I only put out 5 a week, but every week there is probably on average one new film or wrestling event to writing about, and that takes a slot.  Then there are weeks with many films, like I’ve had recently and will be moving into with Oscar season continuing.


So I came up with an idea.  I asked my facebook to give me a list of movies that they did not think I had seen.  I absorb entertainment and media like a sponge, and have watched a LOT of movies.  This way I can give shorter reviews on a bunch of things people might not think I’ve seen, as well as have a fun bank of things to come back to when I need inspiration.  In the nice long list of films, I probably saw a fifth of them, which is a great number.  So I’m going to review all 26 of the movies that were suggested that I have seen.  This will be a rapid fire barrage of reviews.  Let’s get going!



 Dinosaurs! – Nicole Clockel
An edu-tainment Claymation-y fun short about dinosaur life.  I remember specifically sitting with my best friend at the time, Karl, when we were 7 or 8 at his house, and between playing TMNT SNES games or with figures or running around outside, we watched this little video.  I’ve seen it since then as well, but it is a silly thing to talk about.  It is purposefully silly, and all kinds of weird, but really enjoyable.  It is on youtube, and I’ll linky it here.  I definitely think it is worth your time, because of nostalgia for some of you and just for fun in general.  It isn’t great by any means, but it is fun.
Grade: C+




Rat Race – Lenton Lees 
The semi-rebooting, more “another version” of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Rat Race features an incredible cast, and is a big ole chase/race comedy.  It is hilarious, has some heart, and some awesome music.  It is probably one of the best comedies to introduce people to a bunch of great comedians all at once, including Mr. Bean, Seth Green, Whoopi Goldberg, John Cleese, Breckin Mayer, Amy Smart, and Jon Lovitz.  Really enjoyable, though it doesn’t quite shoot that extra mile.  It sits in a nice comfortable zone that most good comedies do, where it is real good, but the actual film never tries to be any greater than that.  Highly recommend.
Grade: B++



The Longest Yard – Lenton Lees
Wrestlers!  Sandler the last time he was funny!  Except there’s sequences of it totally not being funny, too, because Sandler has to always ALWAYS write his characters as having enormous penises or getting the hottest women in the world.  But that’s fine, because that has very little actual impact on the movie.  This is probably one of my favorite sports films I’ve seen.  It actually goes that extra mile in film quality and technique, as well as just having incredible actors in Burt Reynolds, William Fichtner, Terry Crews, and a slew of awesome wrestler … not “cameos” as everyone’s screentime and character weight is larger than that.  It is an incredibly fun sports movie with a moving story, it is really funny, and even though it blatantly steals an entire scene from the British remake of the Longest Yard, Mean Machine, it is still a really fun movie that is also really good.  Probably my favorite Sandler film, and easily the one I think that is his best film.
Grade: A++



Ernest Saves Christmas – Lenton Lees
Here’s the thing about Ernest: you either love Jim Varney’s shenanigans, or you just don’t get it or see a point.  I personally find Ernest endearing.  In fact, this is the first Ernest film I saw, which is good, because it is also easily his highest budgeted, best looking, best acted, best directed, BEST Ernest film.  It tells a great story, has fun comedy, and is a Christmas classic in the Jessel household.  On top of that, I do believe it has my absolute favorite Santa Claus in film, played by the same dude who is the Sultan and Jasmine’s father in Aladdin!  He is perfect as Santa, and adds some amazing gravitas to what could have just been a frivolous and silly kids movie.  It isn’t one of the best movies ever made, and the effects are absolutely dated, but it is a wonderful movie.
Grade: B++



South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut – Lenton Lees
Trey Parker and Matt Stone have made all of two things I like: South Park and Book of Mormon.  I do not like BASEketball, I don’t like Cannibal: the Musical, I don’t like Orgazmo.  But this movie is excellent.  It is an amazingly well made musical parody of just about every single style of musical, from Les Mis to Disney to Sound of Music.  The story itself has a purpose to exist as a film because it is about censorship, parental choices, and really nice satire of the “crusade” against cursing.  I really think this movie does everything right.  And its unique animation style makes it in a sense timeless, which is great!  Great movie.
Grade: A+



Much Ado About Nothing (Whedon version) – Lenton Lees
Not every movie that is a good movie I like.  Wes Anderson movies prove that.  As does this one.  One of the best things about Shakespeare is that every adaptation is 100% the director’s intention.  And some of Joss’ choices are awesome.  And some are not.  I think Whedon was able to really elevate the parts of Claudio and Don Pedro fantastically, making both parts have a lot more weight and interest than most versions of the show.  He also made some very good comedic choices early in the film.  But very quickly, the comedy of this comedy goes away.  And that’s … just … wrong.  Much Ado About Nothing is a comedy, pure and simple.  And Whedon treated it as a drama.  And that is a disservice to a lot of the characters, a lot of the language, and a lot of other choices.  Dogberry wasn’t particularly funny, even though he’s written to be.  Don Jon isn’t very menacing because everything is treated so seriously so he isn’t a foil.  Benedict and Beatrice don’t have a banter-filled romance because the banter is more catty and snide than humorous and joyful.  There are some bits I really enjoyed, generally whenever he had the actors get more physical, because otherwise they just pontificate into the wind at each other.  In the end, Whedon focused on the “Much Ado” while forgetting the point that it is all about “Nothing.”
Grade: B-



Oversexed Rugsuckers From Mars! – Jason Abraham
I’ve been saving this one for a Nanarsday review, but I’m MORE than happy to talk about this HORRIBLE MOVIE now!  It is a gloriously terrible movie about a man who has sex with an alien vacuum cleaner, and it becomes a rapist and rapes a woman, who gives birth to a human-vacuum hybrid baby.  It is gross, and hilarious, and terrible.  One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen and I LOVE IT!  I found it randomly years ago, and it is a pride of my collection of films because of its ridiculous-ness.  Really, if anyone ever wanted to watch it, FIND ME and we’ll watch it that second.
Grade: F+



Chasing Amy – Jason Abraham
I have a love/hate relationship with Kevin Smith.  I either love his films and buy into them completely, or hate them and find them worthless.  Chasing Amy falls in the worthless category.  The script is preachy, the situation is so narrow that no one can relate to it, making the characters unlikable and just complainers.  Smith doesn’t direct Affleck very well here, which is crazy considering how great Affleck is in other Smith films.  It just … I just hate this movie.  Give me Dogma, Mallrats, or Clerks II any day.
Grade: C--



Dawn of the Dead; Day of the Dead; Land of the Dead – Tony Daniel
I love this little bit.  I may have never seen Night of the Living Dead, but I have absolutely seen and own all of the Romero trilogy of Dead films.  Comes with being married to a zombie lover.  Let’s touch on all of these:



Dawn of the Dead – This film is perfect.  Acting, tension, shots, characters, story, everything.  This may just be my favorite zombie movie, period.  I was blown away because what I THOUGHT this movie was and what it actually is are two VERY different things.  The effects are real old and not very good looking, but I like to see them like a time capsule of effects, and completely buy into them.  I say it all the time, but dated-ness is not a real negative, and these may not be the best effects, but they are great effects for what they are.  I cannot recommend this film more highly.  Grade: A++




Day of the Dead – I thought this would be my favorite, and I do really like it.  It is much more of what I thought it would be.  And it easily has one of the best villains a zombie film has ever had in it.  It also explores the zombie mythos more, which is very cool, and Romero continues to push the envelope with his characters.  It has better effects and is really interesting … but just not as good as Dawn.  I don’t know if I can put my finger really on why, but I think it is something to do with our protagonist, who while being interesting just isn’t as good of an actress, and the pacing of the film itself is a little off, leading to some boring stretches.  But the effects, and the other characters, are all well worth price of admission here.  Grade: B+



Land of the Dead – So Dawn of the Dead got a remake, and Romero was all “I can make a ‘modern’ zombie film better than that.”  So he continued the story of his world of zombies.  And man, I love it.  It isn’t as good as the last few, but it has some GREAT characters, some awesome world building, and while the plot is less interesting, the overall effect leaves me very happy.  I love this movie, even if it began the decline in quality of Romero’s writing.  Grade: B++






The Man Who Knew Too Little – Beth Lyons
This comedy was actually suggested to me by Beth probably a year or so ago, so I bought it, and I watched it.  I wish I had been writing reviews then, because then I wouldn’t have to think about this movie again.  Oh, yeah, that should make it obvious, I don’t like the movie.  I don’t think it is bad, I just didn’t find most of its comedy very good.  The entire idea is fine, and some of the scenes are fine, but the whole product just leaves me cold, as our protagonist has to be continually stupider and stupider to allow the very thin premise of “believes all the spy stuff is fake, accidentally gets caught in real spy stuff” to continue.  The climax of the film is just long and tedious with the whole Russian dance sequence and the bomb and … ugh.  I just did not care for the film, and really do not think it is very good, and mostly forgettable.
Grade: C--



The Bank Job – Jason Schmidt
Good ole Jason Statham.  Action star, good actor, British.  Ok, so Bank Job isn’t a GREAT movie.  It’s a real good one, though.  Based on a real heist, with some good actors and some great camera work, the film works.  I’ve seen a lot less memorable Statham films, though this one only barely jumps above that pack.  It isn’t great, but it is fun.  And if you are a history person or a heist person, this one may do even more for you.  For me, it was just a good movie.
Grade: B



Jackie Brown – Jason Schmidt
Jackie Brown is a neat little movie.  That actually sounds more belittling than I mean it to.  It has a slow first act, but not a BAD first act, just a slow one, that builds really well to an amazingly well made finish.  Lots of great actors all throughout the film, including the wonderful Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson playing the character that we all actually attribute to him in the modern zeitgeist, and Robert De Niro who may have … 8 lines in the whole movie?  But it is still one of his best roles.  I really like this movie.  It isn’t the easiest sit because of that long first act that really needed an editor, and Robert Foster is good but doesn’t quite keep me as interested for those long sections as Tarantino has found Christoph Waltz can.  But it is still a very good, very ambitious movie.
Grade: B+



State and Main – Jason Schmidt
David Mamet is a playwright, director, and a screenwriter and director.  He is known for things like Glengarry Glen Ross and American Buffalo, but he’s done a lot of other stuff.  State and Main is one of those other stuffs.  It … isn’t particularly good.  There are bits and pieces I really like in there, but there is also some stunt casting that does nothing for me and some of the comedy beats come across VERY Mamet, in that every character rushes through their dialogue as fast as they can.  The actual movie is about the filming of a movie in a little town because they like a stained glass window, and all the turmoil it causes everyone.  I don’t really think it is worth a watch, but for some people, all that fast-talking is actually a turn-on.  If you are a Aaron Sorkin fan, this may just be up your alley.
Grade: C-



Devil’s Advocate – Jason Schmidt
I love talking about good Keanu Reeves films.  Mostly because I think he is an underrated actor.  As an actor myself, I can see the actual “craft” in what he is doing, and I get why for some he doesn’t come across like he acts.  He is very stoic faced a lot of the time, and his voice is generally calm no matter the emotion.  But what Keanu does really well is expression of emotion through his eyes and his body.  There are very few actors who can pull of supreme confidence just by standing there saying nothing like Keanu can.  And there are very few that can show the deterioration of a soul like Keanu can, that slow wearing down that was necessary for this film.  Devil’s Advocate is a GREAT movie.  It is a morality play in a time period when morality was pretty gauche to begin with.  Al Pacino is fantastic in the movie as well.  It is a great film.  One I used to own, and I need to buy again.  I recommend.
Grade: A+



Man on the Moon – Jason Schmidt
The biopic on Andy Kaufman, made by dear friends of Andy Kaufman, paying homage to the man, played by the only person anyone that knew Kaufman thought could play him.  This is a great biopic.  It has great music.  It has great acting.  It has a compelling, albeit very movie-fied as admitted by the prologue of the film, story of the real life of this enigmatic actor.  I own the soundtrack.  I own the film.  I love both.  It is a shame that Jim Carrey did not get the Oscar for this performance, but of course he should have since 1999 was the year of terrible Oscar decisions and Shakespeare in Love sweeping through almost everything.  Man on the Moon was called by some the best picture of 1999, and others just didn’t get it.  Which is kind of perfect when it comes to talking about Andy Kaufman.  I highly recommend to anyone that loves comedy and the history of comedy.
Grade: A++



Mars Attacks! – Jason Schmidt
My dad took me to see this movie.  My mom didn’t like that he did.  It is a weird, silly, off-putting, crazy kind of film.  Definitely not for everyone.  It is absolutely unique, and everything I want from a Tim Burton film.  It also holds the honor of being the only live-action film based on a trading card series, which is a mindboggling piece of information by itself.  A tongue-in-cheek homage to 50s sci-fi horror films, and filled with just … craziness.  Man, I just … this is a weird movie kids.  Too weird to be good, too weird to be bad, it is its own brand of quality.
Grade: W (for weird … I actually give it a C)


The Departed – Jason Schmidt
Hey, wanna know a great movie?  The Departed.  Done.  Go watch a great movie.  What you need more?  How about its pedigree of actors and directors and cinematographers?  I’ll wait while you imdb it.  I know right?  How about the incredible filmmaking just in general?  Or the tight script?  Or the intriguing characters?  Or the amazing conceit?  Or the original that is ALSO good, but this remakes for western audiences in an old school mafia way that transcends the original?  This movie is great.  Period.  Watch it.
Grade: A+



Black Swan – Jason Schmidt
Darren Aronofsky is so so good.  And Black Swan is amazing.  Tense, thrilling, psychological, amazing acting from Natalie Portman (got an Oscar for it, well deserved), this movie is phenomenal.  The music is of course going to be great because it is Swan Lake.  But really, this movie is amazing.  It should have gotten at least a cinematography and a best director nod.  It got neither.  These kind of psychological thinky thrillers tend to not do well in the Oscars.  Aronofsky deserves awards.  And this film is one of his best, written as if tailored to his style specifically even though it wasn’t.  Watch this very very intense film some time.
Grade: A++



Waterworld – Jason Schmidt
Waterworld is one of the biggest financial flops in history.  Doesn’t make it a bad movie, though.  It makes it a great punchline, but as a fantasy movie, it is actually all kinds of AWESOME.  The setting is all practical and all amazing.  The acting is great from Dennis Hopper and even Kevin Costner.  The script is a great story filled with little nods and secrets to the what happened in the world.  The action is awesome.  I love the movie, and really don’t understand why others don’t.  Maybe because they only know the joke and never actually watched the thing.  Give it a chance.
Grade: A++



12 Monkeys – Jason Schmidt
Time travel movies are difficult, and sometimes their plots just don’t quite add up.  Other times they are too simple.  12 Monkeys is both.  Confusing and simple.  I don’t think it is a bad movie, it has some real interesting parts to it and some good acting.  But I ultimately found it boring.
Grade: B-





Four Rooms – Jason Schmidt
Four very different vignettes from four pretty different directors all based around rooms in a hotel.  Uh … I guess I’ll say this: Tim Roth is great.  Each individual sequence is so incredibly different I’ll just grade each one.
Part 1: D
Part 2: C-
Part 3: A+
Part 4: B+
So when I watch it, I just skip to the middle.  Yup.



Deathproof – Jason Schmidt
Man, I do not know how to talk about this one ... ok, lemme list the things that are good. The direction is fantastic. The movie looks and FEELS good, from a filmmaking and thematic standpoint. Kurt Russel is AMAZING as Stuntman Mike. The action and car sequences are really amazing and frenetic. A lot of the things that I love from Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained are here and this is the prototype for him directing like that. This movie is a bridge from his old style (which I generally don't care for) and his new style. There is a lot to like. But this movie SERIOUSLY needed an editor. A stronger edit would have helped this movie incredibly. And another sequence of Stuntman Mike doing what he does would have been perfect. Trim down all the standard Tarantino talky talk that didn't really do very much and give us another Stuntman Mike sequence. Tarantino learned to trim himself for Basterds and Django, making much stronger, engaging films. And that's the problem, I suppose. I really wanted to be engaged the whole time, and was really only engaged when Kurt Russel was onscreen and for the basics of the chicks. The genre subversion at the end was interesting, but for me, abrupt, and right at the end, I actually found myself rooting for Stuntman Mike because I knew more about him and understood him better, and he had less dialog than the chicks that I was supposed to be rooting for. Showing, not telling, made him a stronger, more engaging character. And they just left Mary Elizabeth Winestead with the crazy redneck! What the heck!? This movie is hard to grade. I can see myself wanting to watch it again, and I LOVED everything with Kurt Russel, but I dunno if I wanna slog through the rest.Grade: B-



High Fidelity – Jason Schmidt
One of the first “serious” comedies I’ve ever seen, it made a huge impact on me.  I am a collector and sponge for media much like John Cusack is in the film, though my own life and his represented in the film has nothing in common, and I don’t actually relate to him, but that doesn’t actually matter.  He resonates.  And his relationship struggles opened my eyes.  The film is unique, which is a huge plus.  It is a really well written and well acted film, so that’s real cool.  Honestly, though, it just didn’t stick with me like I thought it would, and I don’t care to see it again.  I don’t hate it.  I just don’t like it.  I remember how good it was, but that’s the extent of it.
Grade: A



Harvey – Cindy Carrin
The only Jimmy Stewart film I’ve seen and loved.  It is a great play, a great old movie, and just awesome all around.  A classic.  You absolutely should watch it.  Everyone.  Do it.
Grade: A+







And there we have it!  A LOT of films reviewed in a handy dandy quick way with beautiful pictures that took me way too long to format.  Thanks everyone, and I am positive I will do an exercise like this again!  Until tomorrow, where we have some newer films, a Wes Anderson film, some wrestling, and probably other stuff!

4.12.14

IHAO on ... Zodiac



What happens when a very good director gets his hands on an uninteresting script?  Zodiac.

Ok, uninteresting isn't fair.  The story of the Zodiac killer is very interesting.  But how this film goes about presenting it over two and a half hours is almost completely unenjoyable.  It has too many characters that none get enough focus, and is incredibly unbalanced in how it tells its "story."  I put "story" in quotes because this is very much presented as an Unsolved Mysteries episode, except it is actually a nice long marathon of episodes all about the same dude.

The Zodiac killer is a case all about possibly the greatest "unsolved" serial killings in the United States.  We follow a group of people all working towards solving the case, specifically an editorial cartoonist played by Jake Gyllenhaal and an FBI guy on the case played by Mark Ruffalo.  We shift from one to the other for a short time before we officially stick on Gyllenhaal's character as he gathers all the information again to write his book.  This whole thing is very much based on that book.  It is a historical fiction, in that it takes a collection of facts and history and then weaves bits of fiction between to present the story.

Let me talk about the good things: Fincher directs this movie, and in some moments, he is wonderful.  Most moments, he is unremarkable.  Really the whole film is unremarkable, except for ... ultimately three sequences.  There are three sequences that really put on the tension and the interest in this film.  Those sequences are probably three or four minutes long each.  So let's be generous and say 12 minutes of this film is worth watching.  That's not a high percentage.

The movie is not a bad one.  It is just an unremarkable one, other than a few major successes in tension and storytelling.  I would not suggest anyone watch this film, though if you do, and you are really into serial killer stuff, this may be a nice way to spend an afternoon, I suppose.

Grade: C

20.11.14

IHAO on ... Nightcrawler



Some movies are great films because of the firm hand directing them.  Many Fincher films are like that, like Gone Girl.  Some films are strong because of their ensemble's chemistry with each other, like Our Idiot Brother.  Some films are excellent because they have a tight script, or their sound is spectacular.  But some films are great films based solely on the single lead actor's performance.  Nightcrawler is one of those movies.

I do not like Jake Gyllenhaal.  He is not an actor I have come to like, and in fact, I have in the past said that he makes a bad leading man that brings down films he is the leading man of.  And Gyllenhaal knocks this movie right out of the park with his spectacular performance.  Nightcrawler is a character study about an odd thief who finds a new line of work in "night crawling" or following the police scanner for violent and terrible crimes, filming it, and selling it to networks for their morning news.  And that is what this movie is, watching Lou Bloom, Gyllenhaal's character, and slowly picking apart and learning what kind of man he is.

As an actor, I love a character study.  And as a film guy, I love a character study.  The Hurt Locker I've said many times before is one of my favorite films because it is an intense character study of what makes the lead man, Jeremy Renner's character, do what he does.  Pain & Gain is another film I love with some intense ensemble character acting.  Birdman has some incredible acting in it, Oscar award nominee deserving acting.  And Nightcrawler is ... almost as good as those films.  It isn't Gyllenhaal's fault, let me be clear.

Explain yourself then, me!  To them, because I already know.  Because I add the gifs after I finish the review.  So yeah, me, tell 'em!

Film is a collaborative effort.  I mentioned and linked to Gone Girl above, and that film I gave a B+ to because even though the directing is phenomenal, the script and dialogue left some to be desired.  Nightcrawler has an incredible leading performance that has drastically turned me around on my thoughts of Jake Gyllenhaal ... but the direction by first-time director, multi-time writer Dan Gilroy made some odd choices that took me out of the film.  A lot of heavy-handed imagery, some odd choices for how to portray tension in a scene with obnoxious close-ups, and some fatty bits of other characters and scenes that really needed to be as slickly edited as the rest of the film all left me a little colder to the overall product.  All understandable for a first time director, but nonetheless a little on the nose.

This is a good movie.  A very good one.  And it tries to be great.  Gilroy writes a fantastic script.  And Gyllenhaal was more than excellent.  Small acting choices, or the disturbing lack of expression or wit makes Lou Bloom a fascinating character that will keep me coming back to the film over and over.  But every time I come back, I will once again see a heavy-handed montage of satellites and wires to show news being broadcast, or the final shot's slow obnoxious zoom, or myriad other things that all make this film a little harder to stay invested with.  This is the perfect example of a "B" film under my grading system.  It is a great movie, with some large flaws that keep it from reaching what it really could have been.

Grade: B++

EDIT: I made a huge mistake in my original posting of this review, attributing the film to Michael Mann.  I do not know why or how I confused Michael Mann into the mix of this film, as he is nowhere near this movie.  The closest he was ... was in the trailer for Blackhat that was before this movie.  Somehow I mashed them together.  So I need to say now that knowing that this is a first time directing part for Dan Gilroy, who wrote the wonderful Real Steel and the AMAZING The Fall, I really have come to like this movie a lot more.  It is still a B for me on the pure objective side of things, but I love Gilroy, and as weird as it sounds, to hear this is his first gig as a director makes me like the movie even more than I already did.

My apologies to anyone I steered wrong earlier, but there we go, caught it and fixed it.

25.9.14

IHAO on ... the Gotham pilot

This show has been talked about for awhile.  And I knew I needed to give my thoughts to the whole thing.  A little backstory: I absolutely love Arrow on the CW, and season 2 of that show was the best thing on TV in my mind last year.  I'm incredibly excited for season 3, as well as season 1 of The Flash, both of which start in just two weeks, and you can expect a Flash pilot review as well.  I'm a comic book fan.  I really, truly am.  Collecting for a long time, even if now I'm down to just a single series.  And all of that said ... I am not a Batman fan.  The operative word there being "fan."  Some Batman stuff I like, some I don't, some I despise, some I love!  So I'm not coming into this review as a Batman fan, blinded either way by my own love for the series or whatever.  Which ... actually, at first I thought that would count as a negative for me, but you know what, I'm a professional critic (technically), and this is a good place to be!  All right, I'm ready!  Let's do this!



44 minutes later

Ok, so I got a lot to say about this show.  But let me start with this: I kind of liked it.  Yeah, I kind of like it.  I don't like it like a fanboy, and in fact most of the fanboy-stuff (which this show is FILLED with) do nothing for me.  I don't care about seeing all these little nods and winks and nudges to the Batman mythos.  In fact, this show gets 300% better when that stuff is thrown to the side.  It becomes a really interesting mafia/cop drama.  I understand the need for some to see Bruce because he's the main character of the Gotham stories.  But he is absolutely the worst part of this show.

The majority of actors in this show are ... fine.  Including our lead.  Some are worse than that.  Some are better.  I actually really really loved Penguin and Butch.  They are my two favorite characters, and the two I want to see.  In fact, Penguin is even BETTER than that.  He is the reason I'm going to keep watching the show.  And he is in every episode, so I'm excited for that.

The show is clearly something different than the expectations of Batman.  It is set in the present, the characters backstories are different, even some names and hints of future Bat-characters are around, and all are different.  For some this might be a turn off.  And to be honest, some of it was a turn off for me.  Ivy Pepper was so on the nose with all her plants, it made me audibly laugh.  The comedian in Jada Pinkett Smith's club is ridiculously gonna be the Joker ... maybe, but it is at least enough to make us think.  Actually, you know what, take that back, he's interesting enough.  Catwoman, well, Cat-girl is ridiculous ... ok, well, actually I kind of like her too.  It makes sense for someone else to have been in the alley, even if it was just a homeless person, so sure, that works for me.

Now, there are some big drawbacks.  The show looks super cheap.  The sets look bad, the lighting for the most part is utter garbage.  The costuming is either one the nose or ridiculous, many times both, such as with Riddler.  Also, the writing is super super duper ... weighted.  The whole show is.  It is part of the baggage of being set in Gotham's past.  Every character, every choice, all sorts of lines, all have this extra weight attached to them, which drags down the show as it has to slog through the Batman-ness.

By the way, since we are doing a pre-Batman Gotham, and using Gordon as the only "good" cop in a world of either mediocre or bad cops, you have essentially created him as Proto-Batman.  Or Protoman.  The schtick of Gordon normally in the Batman narrative is that he understands Batman and wishes he could do what Batman does, making things right unfettered by the law.  But he believes in the law as well.  It is the very classic argument of Lawful Good versus Chaotic Good.  But in Gotham, he is already basically Chaotic Good, because the "law" he is fighting against is that imposed by the criminals running the city.  Gordon is Protoman.



Which is why the show surprised me when it got real great.  It was able to drop all that weight around halfway through and start focusing on the kind of show it really wants to be: a crime drama about a city that is one of the worst, ever, and the people that make it both better and worse.

This show surprised me.  I'm not supposed to be rooting for Penguin, but I love him, his actor, his costuming, how he is portrayed, the way they worked him into the narrative.  He's the best part of the show for me.  Gordon sucks, Bullock is interesting but Donal Logue is not an amazing actor so he sometimes comes across a little odd and off character, but I bet the writing will start to match Logue better and that he will get better.  Jada Pinkett Smith started as the worst non-kid actor on the show, but she really ends up doing pretty great.

The show's quality is low on the technical side.  It makes me appreciate Arrow more and more, because it is just beautiful.  Using real rooftops and amazing lighting, oh it is so wonderful.  And the terrible looking sets, while pretty decently designed, just all look super cheap.  Gotham LOOKS like TV.  And not good TV.  Not "shot on location" TV.

Now, the most important point: Is Gotham something you can enjoy?  Really, I think it depends on if you are a Batman fan, and what kind of fan.  Do you just like seeing reference to the things you love?  Probably gonna really get into this.  Like being immersed in the Batman you love?  Probably going to hate this, as the immersion of this show is its worst aspect and where it fails the most.  Do you not care about Batman at all?  This might be worth it for you, especially if you enjoy cop dramas, and ESPECIALLY non-procedural cop dramas.

I should mention, all of this is "so far."  All my criticisms and ... what the opposite of that is, like-isms I guess, are all "so far."  There has been one episode.  Most television shows take around six episodes to find their stride.  Some take a full season before they can even get where they are wanting to go.  So who knows.  Maybe they will just put more and more of the garbage faux-father-surrogate stuff that I hated in this, making that the real point of the show.

Grade: C? +?

11.9.14

IHAO on ... Stand Up Guys


Hey look, I finally got around to this one!  Sure took me long enough, especially considering that back when I decided to review it, it was the one I was most looking forward to!  So let's start up Netflix and get this puppy reviewed!

95 minutes later

Huh.

You know what's great about seeing Pacino and Walken playing best friends?  Everything.  You know what's great about seeing the guy from Short Circuit 2 be a director?  Everything.  You know what's great about Alan Arkin having a ... basically extended cameo for Act 2?  Everything.  You know what's great about this movie?  Just about everything.  Then why don't I love this movie?

There are some barriers that keep it from being amazing in my book.  But I'm a little nitpick-y and snobbish at times.  Comes with the territory of reviewing films for a "living."  And I can very much understand these things not mattering to most.  But first, let me continue to tell you the good stuff.

This film is about the last day in the life of Val, played by Al Pacino, as his only friend Doc, played by Christopher Walken, has to kill him by morning to erase a mob debt.  These guys are criminals, and friends.  Val was in the joint for 28 years, taking the rap for everyone, because "[he's] a stand-up guy."   So we watch the adventures of these old-timer crooks on Val's last day alive.  This includes a car chase, a semi- I Spit On Your Grave subplot, getting suits, breaking Arkin out of a nursing home, lots of hookers, and a little bit of violence.  But what it really involves is Val and Doc's friendship.

That's the thing this entire film pivots around.  It is the grease on the plot's wheel.  And this is the "flaw" of the movie ... these guys are just a little too tough.  A little too hardened.  So we just do not quite get into the emotions these guys are feeling.  Some of that is because I believe everyone involved thought they were making a quirkier comedy than they actually were.  Or perhaps they thought they were being more serious than they ended up being.  I'm not really sure.  But there is a barrier of emotion that keeps this movie from being GREAT.  I see their friendship, I see the subtle things, but the plot, the dialogue, the acting, none of those things really bring the audience in deep into the film's emotion, and that's unfortunate.

That said, it is a well shot, well acted, well written movie.  It does everything right.  Everything except for going above and beyond.  I think this film is easily worth watching, and the fact that not only it is on Netflix right now, but that blu-rays are 8 bucks are Wal-Mart means that a lot of you who really love the crime genre should absolutely watch this film.  But for me, I wanted this movie to give me something more than it was willing to give, and while I find it to be an excellent film, I just don't see myself caring.

Grade: A

2.9.14

IHAO on ... Brooklyn Nine Nine



Comedy!  Cops!  Sitcom!  Procedural!  Terry Crews!  Andre Brauer!  Andy Samberg!  Jokes!  More jokes!  That's it!  Stop typing!  Like this!  Help!  Help!  I'm stuck!  In this!  Stupid rhythm!  And it!  Makes typing!  Really tedious!  Plus my!  Right shift!  Key sticks1  See right!  There it!  Stuck and!  Made me!  Type wrong!

Ok so yeah, I just finished watching the entire first season of Brooklyn Nine Nine.  And I thought, "Hey, instead of having to realize I wasted a whole bunch of time, why don't I write a review of it so that it was totally worth it in the long run!"  So I sure am doing that.

Man, how do I even approach this show.  Ok, let me do this: it sure does feel like a whole bunch of other shows, in both good ways and bad ways.  There's a Dr. Cox, there's a Jerry, there's an April, there's an Elliot, there's a second Jerry, there's an Andy Samberg ... ok, so he's not a sitcom staple.  There's even more archetypal characters, like the loser screw-up, the firey angry latina, the Terry Crews ... ok, he's also not a staple character.  The three leads, Terry Crews, Andre Brauer, and Andy Samberg, are all flawless.  Watching them interact with each other is just the absolute best part of the show.  Terry Crews may in fact be the most perfect human being on the planet.



Yet somehow ... the show doesn't quite have the heart of Parks and Recreation or the non-stop humor of a really good workplace sitcom like Newsradio.  It gets bogged down having to actually do police stuff, kind of like how Scrubs actually has to do hospital stuff, except Scrubs was able to come up with a very pleasant pattern with three intersecting stories that all share a common theme.  Brooklyn Nine Nine just has your standard two stories, A-plot and B-plot.  Except the A-plot never seems important enough, and the B-plot gets too much time.  It ends up feeling like two B-plots.

Let me make it clear, the show is funny.  It is a constant string of chuckles, and a very entertaining watch.  It is also very easy to put on and forget about, because the things that make a good sitcom great is delving deeper and deeper into either jokes or characters.  And Brooklyn Nine Nine does neither.  It is a perfectly good show filled with chuckles, but I certainly cannot think of a time I would go out of my way to watch the show.

5.8.14

IHAO on ... Lie to Me



Tim Roth is a pretty good actor.  He's great in Resevoir Dogs and Musketeer, I liked him in Incredible Hulk, and he is pretty much the best part of Four Rooms.  He does a very good job as Guildenstern (a part I am chomping at the bit to play myself) and The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover is super good with him in it, too.  He's a real good actor.  And he is the lead for this really different crime procedural show!  Well, it started really differerent ...

Just like Bones is based on an actual anthropologist's work, hence its focus on social structures ... except for the episodes with stupid babies or serial killers or other inane plots that made me stop watching that show, Lie to Me is based on an actual doctor of lies.  My wife is a professional therapist, and she has read, and I think we even own, one of the books the real dude that Tim Roth's character is based on, one of that dude's books.  And just like Bones, Lie to Me very very quickly stops being unique and starts just being all the interrogation and talking parts of a crime procedural, without any of the crime.

The first season, though ... that is great!  Complicated, difficult, interesting, thoughtful, really really cool.  I could completely and without any regrets advise everyone to watch it, streaming on Netflix right now!  But slowly and surely, the show loses everything that made it good, and became just "crime of the week."

Not only that, though, the show lost its Pzazz!  Is that how that is spelled?  I dunno, whatever.  There was a way they shot the show, a way that things were told, that the story unfolded, that was just completely dropped.  And that sucked the most.  All the science was incredibly interesting, and they replace it with ... arguing with ex-wives as b-plots and a-plots that are just crimes.  The show becomes everything I hate about crime procedurals.

But season 1!

Sad.

I've been watching a lot of TV recently.  Mostly it is on in the background while I write or work on other things, like cleaning, or cooking, or counting the number of pronouns in paragraphs for .5 cents a paragraph.  I guess I'm going to keep talking about TV shows.  That way I can finally get all my ... thoughts ... about Psych out.

18.7.14

IHAO on ... The Lookout - READER REQUEST

Requested by Jason Schmidt

So I'm a big ole idiot!  I've been sitting on this movie for a very long time.  I ordered it when it was requested of me, and even watched through the first act of it the day it came to my little townhouse right at 7:47 pm with the UPS guy.  It was the third part of the Joseph Gordon-Levitt triumvirate, with (500) Days of Summer and 50/50.  It didn't have a 5 in its title, so I was really hoping it was going to be better than those other films, both in quality and in my sheer enjoyment.  So yeah, I got through the first act, and then guests came over, so I paused it.  And I put it on hold.

Now, probably at least two months later, I finally get around to it because writing about Psych is making my eyes glaze over.  So I'm sitting here at 2am, finally getting around to doing something I should have down months ago, and I pop the Lookout into my blu-ray player.  The machine remembered exactly where I was and I was completely lost.  So let's start it back over from the beginning.  Or, as the movie suggests, I could just start at the end.

This movie is super good.  Super duper good.  The acting from Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jeff Daniels in particularly make this film worth watching a hundred times over.  JGL finally has a character with some real meat on its bones, and he did phenomenally.  The music is haunting and beautiful.  The blu-ray menu is currently on and has been for probably 30 minutes as I write this review and re-draft it a few times.  

I was enthralled with the way the film watched him and how he lived.  He suffered from a major accident, and throughout the film deals with his head trauma.  The movie does not hold hands, and does a million little things perfectly.  The way he has to deal with things, the way his mind is healing, his relationship with his family and co-workers, how they are subtly discriminatory of him because of his handicap, yet then he proves that it is justified.  The hurt in JGL's eyes is real.  Act 1 and Act 3 of this movie is absolutely flawless.

Also there is a bank heist in the middle.


This is where the movie isn't very strong, its Act 2.  Its build up is slow, and even worse, boring.  The actors that play the thieves and the like, they are all not really up to snuff with the caliber of acting everyone else is bringing to this flick.  Our charismatic antagonist just isn't that charismatic.  Our love interest isn't that interesting.  Our bad ass second in command bad guy just isn't that bad ass.  I was watching a film I was really really loving, and then it gets bogged down adding an element I know it felt it needed, but all the build up for it is just so ... *yawn*.

Now, when Act 3 kicks around, and we get into the real crime aspects of the film, we are back in 5th gear.  Enjoyable, emotional, and really engaging.  But I had already lost a lot of interest and was staring at my tablet playing Disco Zoo, finding hats on my hippos and sending Wooly Mammoths to outerspace.  But Act 3 got me back in.

I really want to applaud the director/writer for his choices in a lot of this movie.  We do not have our hands held throughout the first and third acts.  We as the audience learn things through visual storytelling and sideways observation.  It is truly wonderful and engaging storytelling.  Act 2 we have characters just straight up say what they are thinking and asking each other for exposition for the most part, though within even that bad act of the film we have some great storytelling like in the first and third act.  

I really hate to do this, but this film is another B grade film for JGL.  Not for any wrong doing on his part, but for a very slow 30 or 40 minutes within the middle of this 99 minute movie.  But, do not fret, because JGL deserves a flippin' award for how well he does here.  Jeff Daniels does too.  We get so so much great stuff in most of the movie that it makes up for it.  And I do like this one, too!  It isn't trying to be quirky or betraying its best parts to focus on the uninteresting stuff.  I just wish I could have seen the movie about this character and his life without the feeling or necessity that the filmmaker had to also making it a crime film.  If THIS was what 50/50 was treated as, it would have been amazing.

I do suggest this though.  And I will continue my hunt to find a great JGL film.  Even his own film I gave a B.  But soon I'll find you, mystery A-grade JGL film.  I'll find you!!

This was the best whale-related gif I could find.  So ... yeah ... 

Grade: B+


We are a mere two weeks away from my amazing second rendition of Ask Me Anything!  Thank you everyone who has given me questions so far, but I absolutely NEED and MUST HAVE more!  So help me out, leave some questions in my ask box on Tumblr or in the comments here or on facebook or to my email or something.  Any question at all.  Everything and anything you want to ask will be answered, and the vast majority will be honest, and all will be entertaining.  Let's get this thing going, we only got half a month to do this thing!  WOOOOO!

IHAO on EVERYTHING, TOO on August 1st

20.2.14

IHAO on ... the Crow



I finally watched it!  I finally did!  Hurray, I watched a piece of 90s culture that's super important, and super changed how a bunch of television shows and movies looked visually and how characters were written!  It turned the all-American neon fighting machine Sting into ... the Crow ... Sting.  He's now the Joker-Sting, which is pretty funny, considering that arguably the Dark Knight's Joker is how he is because of the Crow.  But I did it!  I watched it!  And it's ok.

Yup, that's it.  Just ok.  Good and bad, history of Brandon Lee's death and all, this movie is fine.  And not even in that way where there is a whole bunch of good and a whole bunch of bad and they even out to create an ok film.  No, no, everything in this movie is just ... fine.  Ernie Hudson is probably the best actor in the movie, and he's just fine.  Tony Todd is also here and is just fine.  The little girl actress is actually pretty good for her age.  Michael Massee is an actor I loved in Flashforward, and was happy to see him here.  But uh ... ok ... let's talk about Brandon Lee.

Wait ... no, no, I didn't mean to ... oh jeez ... don't revenge kill me, please.

Brandon Lee isn't a good actor.  He's go a pretty good presence, but he comes across as a hokey community theatre guy.  Heck, he looks and reminds me of a guy I did theatre with before, though that guy was definitely better as he had some actual gravitas.  Brandon Lee is just kind of there.  Delivering lines that aren't cheesy enough to be bad or enjoyable.  And he doesn't chew the scenery in any kind of extra enjoyable way.  He's just kind of there.  He isn't the worst actor, no, that award goes to our lead villain, who was painful.

There is a whole lot of dated-ness to this film, but it is so stylized that instead of becoming this stamp of old, it became a look that was emulated and wanted.  Much like how John Hughes films, while technically very dated, have this pervasive style that became a genre of their own.  The Crow does similarly, and I think that is a good thing.  There are plenty of bad dated films, but this one isn't bad.  It is just ok.  It never really has any stakes because I never am worried that the protagonist won't succeed.  And as far as revenge flicks go, it does fine enough.  I wish more had been done here, but it is fine, and defined or at least amplified a style and culture.  So there's that.

Grade: C