The Movies By Phil

I know I don’t write here much anymore, but there is a reason.  I got picked up as a writer for the site whatculture.com.  Getting this experience has been unbelievable.  Yesterday I got my first gaming article published, but I was left holding my breath.

What I want most is to be a film writer, but my movie article was left stranded in editing.  I knew it was going to be published, but it’s one of those things you never wholly believe until you see.  So today it got published!

I’ve spent most the morning swimming in self-satisfaction: staring at it on the home page, skimming it, and reading the vitriolic responses.  I can’t wait to write more!

For now, I have to find a new use for this blog.  I think it’ll be more stream of consciousnesses now, but look to whatculture.com to see what I’m writing about.

Okay, technically this isn’t a movie, but I’ve got to plug it in any case.  Sherlock is a new series for the BBC.  I think it warrants mention because of its format at the very least.  The series is only three episodes long, and each one is ninety minutes long.

Sherlock - as you could probably tell - is about Sherlock Holmes.  It’s a modern invention of Conan Doyle’s classic detective protagonist with many creative new takes on the old story that make it worthwhile.  If you were understandably underwhelmed by the Robert Downy Jr. vehicle that bastardized Sherlock Holmes into a less than intellectual action star then this BBC series will be your salvation.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays a brilliantly deranged Sherlock (one of the series fresh takes is the shift from last names to first names in conversation) who is a self proclaimed “highly functioning sociopath.”  Martin Freeman is, as always, delightful in his role as Dr. John Watson (especially when he starts his blog in episode three) who himself is a returned Afghan War veteran with a psychosomatic limp.  The two are a fantastic pairing.  I especially like the depiction of John Watson as and independent mind who is far more the equal of his partner rather than Sherlock’s muscled lap dog (sorry Jude Law).

The series has a lot going for it beyond the well selected leads.  Watch the first episode, “A Study in Pink,” and you’ll understand.  From the outset when you see text messages scrawl across the screen fluidly you know director Paul McGuigan’s aim is to merge old and new, and he succeeds constantly; often in the funniest way possible.  From John and Sherlock being mistaken for a couple repeatedly to Sherlock’s pipe being replaced by an excess of nicotine patches to Holmes’ psychosomatic limp everything hits.  It’s ninety minutes of great that honestly set the bar maybe too high.  So many great aspects are revitalized that it was probably unrealistic to assume the pace could be maintained in each episode.

And with that said the second episode is a disappointment.  It’s also the only episode helmed by someone other than Paul McGuigan.  Mcguigan’s visual style is absent.  Replaced by similar style that never quite works (unless you’re watching Numbers).  The story and dialogue also slip with portions often dragging narratively or becoming cliched/kinda just racist.

Have no fear though.  The series is redeemed by the final installment which brings back the magic.

I absolutely loved this series and the best part is it’s on Netflix Instant Queue right now!  Watch the first episode and you’ll be hooked.  I’d personally recommend you skip the second though and watch the third episode next.  If, after that, you really want to see the second okay, but don’t expect to get the fix the other episodes left you craving.

A clever and funny retelling with texting on screen done intelligently for once to boot.

Am I a bad person for being happy that Cars 2 is getting less than stellar reviews?  I just want John Lasseter to make great movies like everyone else at Pixar instead of stupid movies featuring Larry the Cable Guy.  Is that so much to ask?  I think this quote from Jordan Hoffman sums up how Lasseter’s Cars series compares to every other film Pixar has made.  ”This isn’t an animated film, this is a cartoon.”

I just watched a lesser known Scorsese feature called The King of Comedy.  It reminded me a lot of Exit Through the Gift Shop in that they’re both enormously dark and cynical about the nature of celebrity and fame.  If you’re at all interested in the sort of modern day fixation people have with celebrity that creates the Kim Kardashians and the Steve Bartmans of the world then both are must watches.  I think it’s worth watching both because of the different views they come from: Gift Shop being a modern documentary look at fame and King being a cinematic look at the same issue but from a different time.

What makes The King of Comedy stand the test of time in this tandem is how well Scorsese understands the nature of fame and how the general public obsesses over it.  Even without the twenty-four hour news, blogs, and Twitter of today’s world which could serve as backdrops to convey obsession and fixation he succeeds in making a criticism that doesn’t weaken with time.

There’s one scene in particular in King in which a famed TV host walks along a crowded New York sidewalk.  Every step he takes is accompanied by a stranger crying out to get his attention or someone asking for an autograph or a huddled group staring on in amazement as he passes by.  If you ported the movie forward thirty years the only difference would be the slew of onlookers who would be filming the TV host’s every step hoping to find some ripple of interest that they could use to post to Youtube or sell to TMZ to help drive their own need to be recognized.

Anywho, it’s a fantastic movie and a really interesting satire of fame.  I’m not sure it’s so much a comedy (as listed on Netflix) as it is a tragedy, but judge that for yourself.

Question:

What is the worst comic book movie I’ve ever seen?

Soooooo many comic book movies.  Where to start?  I think this is calling for an award show set of category winners list!

Without further ado the winners are…

For Best Destruction of a “High-Profile” Comic Book Series

Fantastic Four (2005)

Honest to God if Jessica Alba wasn’t the hottest woman alive there wouldn’t be a single redeeming quality in this movie.  The cast hasn’t got a single ounce of chemistry.  Chris Evans stinks up the joint as usual (beware anyone who is excited for Captain America).

For Comic Book Movie that Made Ben Affleck Realize Maybe He Should Try Directing

Daredevil (2003)

From the visionary director of such classics as Jack Frost and Ghost Rider comes this.  Who would have thought, right?  This movie’s most interesting point is certainly Ben Affleck’s hair.  I was almost certain that his hair was the superpower for the first fifteen minutes.

For Sheer Bastardization of a Successful Comic Book Movie Franchise

Batman and Robin (1997)

This is the famed “nipples on the Batsuit” movie.  It also featured the governator in the ghastly role of Mr. Freeze.  The whole movie is sort of horrific to think about.  Whoever thought making Batman campy was a good idea must have been smoking with Miley Cyrus and Michael Phelps or something.  Just an atrocious decision.  In other news Alicia Silverstone was the pinnacle of the 1990’s.

For Best (Worst) Comic Book Movie I’ve Seen

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

It takes the cake for two reasons.  First, this movie actually manages to be bad for all but ten seconds of its 110 minute run time.  Those ten seconds happen to be filled with one of my favorite lines in all of cinema though with Sean Connery spouting, “The game is on!” in that fantastic voice.  The rest is completely incoherent though.  Just muddled and confusing and filled with bleh CGI.  The second reason is because it’s so bad it’s actually good.  Now you think that would disqualify it from this category, but it doesn’t.  Every minute is so preposterous it makes for an epic Mystery Science Theater experience.  If you’re looking for something awesomely bad this is your ticket.

School’s out so I’m home from college this weekend to see my parents and such.  So clearly I milked the opportunity to get my dad who is a huge sci-fi buff to take me to Super 8 with my soon-to-be brother-in-law.  All three of us enjoyed the movie, but when we pulled into the driveway and I told my mom it was “good” she thought something must have been wrong and demanded clarification as to what went so horribly wrong with the movie that I would label it the death mark of “good.”  It seems like my mom isn’t alone in her fear of that word.  ”Good” in America seems to have become synonymous for “why even try?”

So I’ll let the cat out of the bag early because I need to soapbox a bit to clear this up.  Super 8 is a 7.5/10 in my book.  It’s not bad.  It’s not excellent.  It’s good.  That 7.5 is a very respectable 3/4 stars if we’re working with Roger Ebert’s preferred rating scale.  12-4 is a playoff record in football.  A President would kill for a 75% approval rating.

“Good movie” is absolutely the proper designation for Super 8.  I thought it was a good movie: nothing more, nothing less.  I don’t secretly mean it’s a boring movie or a stupid movie or an unoriginal movie, and I certainly don’t mean for you to think it’s a “bad” movie.  Good means good.  Good means you will enjoy this movie.  Now let us move on.

The thing is, I liked the whole movie.  The story worked, the kids were all delightfully great, and it was suspenseful without relying on any cheap tricks.  That’s a tough trifecta to pull off since all Hollywood can write are sequels and superheroes, kids as a general rule suck at acting, and decent suspense seems to have gone the way of chivalry and the dinosaurs.

Director JJ Abrams’ biggest challenge was none of those challenges though. It was in finding a way to pay tribute to Steven Spielberg’s classic films from the ’80s and ’90s without copying them, and he succeeded.  At times I felt the awe Richard Dreyfuss once exuded during his Encounters,  and at others you share in the same terror felt by a young Ariana Richards when she stared down a trembling glass of water in the Park.

But that’s exactly what’s missing from Super 8.  It honors those movies, but it never jumps out as its own force to be reckoned with.  It has no iconic moment.  No singular point where the audience’s collective spirit peaks and the whole movie becomes elevated because of it.  It’s not a nitpicking point.  This movie unabashedly wants to be equal to the classics it honors, but each of those old Spielberg classics needed a linchpin emotionally to made the movie coalesce.  Super 8 never has that moment, and everyone in the theater could feel it even if they didn’t know they were feeling it.  You’re left waiting for an “it” moment that never comes in two hours of anticipation.

That doesn’t stop it from being a good movie though.  It IS a good movie.  Just because it missed an opportunity to elevate itself to the level of classic doesn’t make it bad.  The kid actors are great; they make the movie worth watching on their own (especially the fat kid who is a riot throughout).  The special effects are good.  There’s even a moral to be had.  I just don’t think I’d pay to see it in a theater given the chance over again.  Save your theater money for Harry Potter or Cowboys vs Aliens or whatever; catch Super 8 on Netflix in a couple months.  You won’t have missed the boat.

Final Verdict: 7.5/10