Showing posts with label GI Joe The Rise of Cobra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GI Joe The Rise of Cobra. Show all posts
Friday, 5 March 2010
One-Shot (05/03/10)
Rachel Nichols, she of dazzling G.I. Joe-based Scarlett hotness, being cast in the upcoming Conan flick and said movie rocketing towards the top of my must-see list aren't coincidental occurrences.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
# 27 Review - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Two years ago, I wrote a summer movie retrospective ("Autopsy") for the first issue of Low Standards for High Fives' Grandiloquent Vagaries & Other Miscellany. The print magazine, not the blog. The blog came after the magazine (bone up on your Grandiloquent history here.) The centerpiece of that feature was a review of Michael Bay's Transformers. I loved the toys and accompanying animated works, as a kid, so I was ideally placed to enjoy that movie. Even without this prior fondness, I can only imagine the movie's bubblegum charm would have won me over.
Two years later, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen arrives. It promises more action, more robots, more Megan Fox in various states of undress... more of everything that made the first such good, harmless fun. Returning director Michael Bay kept his word, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is awful all the same. Why? Because more and better aren't synonyms (I checked.) It's unwieldy, obnoxious, and easily my worst of the year, irrespective of expectation.
Last time around, naysayers bemoaned the human presence. This time would have been better spent, for them, watching irrelevant robot carnage. "Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots: The Movie" as Kevin Smith put it. I disagreed then and I disagree now. Transformers succeeded as much because of the fish out of water shenanigans caused by the robots' presence on Earth as it did the SFX. Revenge of the Fallen fails because it brings nothing to the table but chronic indecision and stupidity.
Rather than reign in (and improve) the shaky, broad humour of the original, Bay lets it off the leash. Rather than settle on a clear, perfunctory concept that facilitates maximum good times (like the original), we're given a boring re-tread that refuses to step aside and let the fun in. It's one thing to look past a flimsy MacGuffin or two - "the Allspark", "the Matrix of Leadership" - but the lazy arrogance on show here is unacceptable. At one point, John Turturro's ex-Government agent yells at Jetfire - an elderly, bearded, British robot with a cane - to deliver exposition faster. If handled right, this could have been a winning little meta-moment. Having him essentially say "give us this information faster so we can go back to running around and screaming" is not handling this right. Especially, when the movie think it's cute.
For many, the stunning mech throw-downs of Transformers were a saving grace. By an hour or so into Revenge of the Fallen's inexcusably bloated 2 and a half hour run-time, even those become bland. With the exception of Optimus Prime beating lumps out of various Decepticons in the woodland battle, there's little here to rival the action of the first. The new-fangled human/Autobot alliance is an inviting opportunity for variety as well as excess. Like so much of the film, though, this is largely squandered. The climactic showdown in Egypt is surprisingly small-scale and, worse, overly familiar. Even those who last watched the original theatrically will feel like they've seen it all before in its predecessor's Middle Eastern sequence.
Watch it: because you think Sam is a name you just don't hear screamed enough in movies anymore.
Don't watch it: if you write McSweeney's style microfiction.
Ranking: 3/10 (Disgraced Cadet.)
--
Ian Pratt refuses to let Transformers' sudden franchise debacle mar his excitement for G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
Two years later, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen arrives. It promises more action, more robots, more Megan Fox in various states of undress... more of everything that made the first such good, harmless fun. Returning director Michael Bay kept his word, but Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is awful all the same. Why? Because more and better aren't synonyms (I checked.) It's unwieldy, obnoxious, and easily my worst of the year, irrespective of expectation.
Last time around, naysayers bemoaned the human presence. This time would have been better spent, for them, watching irrelevant robot carnage. "Rock 'em, Sock 'em Robots: The Movie" as Kevin Smith put it. I disagreed then and I disagree now. Transformers succeeded as much because of the fish out of water shenanigans caused by the robots' presence on Earth as it did the SFX. Revenge of the Fallen fails because it brings nothing to the table but chronic indecision and stupidity.
Rather than reign in (and improve) the shaky, broad humour of the original, Bay lets it off the leash. Rather than settle on a clear, perfunctory concept that facilitates maximum good times (like the original), we're given a boring re-tread that refuses to step aside and let the fun in. It's one thing to look past a flimsy MacGuffin or two - "the Allspark", "the Matrix of Leadership" - but the lazy arrogance on show here is unacceptable. At one point, John Turturro's ex-Government agent yells at Jetfire - an elderly, bearded, British robot with a cane - to deliver exposition faster. If handled right, this could have been a winning little meta-moment. Having him essentially say "give us this information faster so we can go back to running around and screaming" is not handling this right. Especially, when the movie think it's cute.
For many, the stunning mech throw-downs of Transformers were a saving grace. By an hour or so into Revenge of the Fallen's inexcusably bloated 2 and a half hour run-time, even those become bland. With the exception of Optimus Prime beating lumps out of various Decepticons in the woodland battle, there's little here to rival the action of the first. The new-fangled human/Autobot alliance is an inviting opportunity for variety as well as excess. Like so much of the film, though, this is largely squandered. The climactic showdown in Egypt is surprisingly small-scale and, worse, overly familiar. Even those who last watched the original theatrically will feel like they've seen it all before in its predecessor's Middle Eastern sequence.
Watch it: because you think Sam is a name you just don't hear screamed enough in movies anymore.
Don't watch it: if you write McSweeney's style microfiction.
Ranking: 3/10 (Disgraced Cadet.)
--
Ian Pratt refuses to let Transformers' sudden franchise debacle mar his excitement for G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
26: The Untouchables
If there's any doubt that this blog moonlights as an advertising outlet for CHUD.com then this post should do to that uncertainty what reality did to TV.
Noel Gallagher once sang "true perfection has to be imperfect." Whether you agree or not, there's no denying he's in the majority. One need only look at movie fans for evidence. Self-professed cinephiles are often associated with a paradoxical taste discrepancy. They praise classics new and old alike, (say, Once and The Graduate) before adding "I can't wait to ogle Sienna Miller's baps in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra!" Moreover, such fans will often count flawed genre properties amongst their favourite films ever, knowingly, legitimately defending them as above critical reproach.
The notion that a movie can be "perfect" despite a flaw or two isn't radical. It's, essentially, an extension (or variation) of the label "popcorn movie." Rather than being a term used to describe the type of film though, this breed of "perfect" cinema is "popcorn" in the sense that it's a source of entertainment first and foremost, an example of the end outweighing the sum of its parts. Pure movie, if you will. Drop into your local pub or coffee house and you might well hear something to the effect of "I know the tangent with Dennies Haysbert's getaway driver isn't essential but it's part of what makes Heat so perfect."
Why not liberate yourself from formulaic Channel 4 100 Greatest List territory by reading this list and getting in on the discussion with kindred spirits? See if you can spot the guy championing Office Space's chunky running time, while you're at it. Before you go... behold!
* I'm trying not to repeat myself, so no Office Space or Heat.
** This wasn't an easy choice, as the mercurial Dutchman could easily warrant a list of his own.
--
Ian Pratt is looking forward to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. He's really more of a Rachel Nichols fan, though.
Noel Gallagher once sang "true perfection has to be imperfect." Whether you agree or not, there's no denying he's in the majority. One need only look at movie fans for evidence. Self-professed cinephiles are often associated with a paradoxical taste discrepancy. They praise classics new and old alike, (say, Once and The Graduate) before adding "I can't wait to ogle Sienna Miller's baps in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra!" Moreover, such fans will often count flawed genre properties amongst their favourite films ever, knowingly, legitimately defending them as above critical reproach.
The notion that a movie can be "perfect" despite a flaw or two isn't radical. It's, essentially, an extension (or variation) of the label "popcorn movie." Rather than being a term used to describe the type of film though, this breed of "perfect" cinema is "popcorn" in the sense that it's a source of entertainment first and foremost, an example of the end outweighing the sum of its parts. Pure movie, if you will. Drop into your local pub or coffee house and you might well hear something to the effect of "I know the tangent with Dennies Haysbert's getaway driver isn't essential but it's part of what makes Heat so perfect."
Why not liberate yourself from formulaic Channel 4 100 Greatest List territory by reading this list and getting in on the discussion with kindred spirits? See if you can spot the guy championing Office Space's chunky running time, while you're at it. Before you go... behold!
5 of Ian's "Perfect" Movies... with annotations!*
(In no particular order)
(In no particular order)
- Annie Hall (1977.) Dir. Woody Allen. Club Med for neurotic zingers, insightful, touching, hilarious.
- Re-Animator (1985.) Dir. Stuart Gordon. Four words: "cat dead; details later?!"
- Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986.) Dir. John Hughes. Most films are lucky to have one legendary performance. This has two: Jeffrey Jones and Alan Ruck. It's also the pick of "the Brat Pack" oeuvre.
- Starship Troopers (1997.) Dir. Paul Verhoeven.** Devin really called it with this, in the original article. Still a benchmark for pulp sci-fi actioners.
- Chasing Amy (1997.) Dir. Kevin Smith. The film his detractors say he peaked with. An endearing, supremely quotable charmer with what should have been a star-making turn from Jason Lee.
* I'm trying not to repeat myself, so no Office Space or Heat.
** This wasn't an easy choice, as the mercurial Dutchman could easily warrant a list of his own.
--
Ian Pratt is looking forward to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. He's really more of a Rachel Nichols fan, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
