This Week: Albert Cantu, Joe Holley, Gabe Vogel, Andrew King
Show Notes:
What We’ve Been Watching:
Coriolanus: 0:35 – 4:00
W. – 4:10 – 5:43
Batman: The Dark Night Returns and Under the Red Hood 6:20 – 8:50
Birdemic: Shock and Terror 8:50 – 12:17
Trance: 12:48 – 13:55
Mud: 13:55 – 15:30
The Great Gatsby Review: 16:04 – 42:41
This Week: Gabriel Vogel, Joe Holley, Albert Cantu, and Andrew King
Show Notes:
A Glimpse Beneath the Curtain: 0:00 – 2:00
What We’ve Been Watching:
Black Snake Moan: 2:00 – 3:55
Baby Doll: 4:48 – 8:00
Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo: 8:00 – 12:20
A Clockwork Orange: 12:20 – 14:59
Lawrence of Arabia: 14:59 – 18:00
Being John Malkovich: 18:00 – 21:30
My Name is Nobody: 21:30 – 23:59
Iron Man 3 Review: 23:59- 54:29
I’ve always been intrigued by sci-fi because it’s a genre in which the imagination is unfettered by boring old reality and is instead free to explore the furthest reaches of the reason, where almost anything is possible. That being said, Star Trek is perhaps the only sci-fi franchise that makes the limitless reaches of the universe feel small and bland. I’m no fan of Star Trek as a franchise, mainly because I had yet to be conceived at the point of it’s heyday, but Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness are doing the IP no favors.
Into Darkness, directed by the incorrigible J.J Abrams- also responsible for Super 8, Mission: Impossible III, and the upcoming Star Wars: Episode VII- marks yet another film which falls heavily within the territory of the thoroughly mediocre. Abrams is not necessarily a bad director, but he certainly wouldn’t be categorized as ‘good’ either. He does, however, have an outstanding mind for marketing. His whole “mystery box” shtick, a phenomenally pretentious analogy basically explaining the common-sense fact that “audiences like to be surprised” has served him very well in the past, and has let him get away with making bland film after bland film by marketing his movies as the greatest, most shocking thing since sliced bread and the solution to peace in the Middle East.
The film stars Chris Pine as Captain Kirk and features Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch as well as the crew of the U.S.S Enterprise as they reprise their roles from the first film. Settling into the trend of omitting decent writing in lieu of flashy action sequences (I wasn’t aware that there was a mandatory tradeoff until recently) Into Darkness has a cast that out-stripes its script. Dialogue is awkward and sometimes cringe-worthy and the vast majority of the crew members have no purpose or identity of their own aside from being play-things for Kirk and Spock to interact with. It’s ironic because the crew of the Starship Enterprise seems to be made of a diverse and interesting cast of characters. Most, however, seem to exist superficially and are fundamentally completely ineffectual, specifically the lovely ladies of Starfleet, who sit around all day talking about boys.
The Star Trek universe has never been limited by the fickle constraints of logic and reason. The 2009 film took the concepts of reason and feasibility and summarily jettisoned them into the vacuum of space. Likewise, Into Darkness pulls its fair share of deus ex machinas out of its ass. One of my favorites was the use of superblood (yes, they literally call it superblood) to save a dying character’s life. I can appreciate that fact that sci-fi grants a measure of creative freedom as far as technology is concerned, but at a certain point one starts to get the impression that Abrams was phoning it in more than usual. The film also suffered from a curious action movie trope, commonly known as ‘countdown madness.’ Andrew counted from no less than five countdowns over the course of the film, each marking time until some explosion of epic proportion moved us along to the next bit of exposition. Countdowns have long been an action movie staple, but just because they’re used often, doesn’t mean than they’re an incredibly cheap and hollow way to build tension.
Not helping the already messy dialogue was a story that was fundamentally silly. I can’t really talk about this next bit without revealing some SPOILERS, so prepare yourself. The main antagonist this time around is none other than than infamous Khan, played by Cumberbatch, but here’s the thing: not once is the existence of the genetically enhanced super soldiers referenced in the previous film, nor is their origin explained beyond one line of exposition from Khan. Apparently, we’re just supposed to sit there and accept it all like the lemmings that Abrams thinks we are. As for Khan’s character as a whole, he’s basically whatever Abrams wants him to be, depending on what the scene calls for. He’s essentially a nonentity, along with virtually every other cast member, who simply wears the skin of whatever nonsensical plot devise Abrams dreams up next. Character development is virtually nonexistent as well, as Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and all the rest simply rehash what has already been established in the first film. It’s shocking how similar the Into Darkness is to 2009’s Star Trek in that respect.
The character to whom I relate most is Karl Urban’s brilliant portrayal of Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, who is presumably the only sensible person left in the entire universe. Bones seems to be the only one cognizant of the fact that he’s stuck in space on a ship full of morons, captained by a psychotic jock fresh out of training camp. Like Bones, I was getting excessively tired of Kirk’s antics. I realized with sorrow in my breast that I had been had by Abrams yet again. Star Trek: Into Darkness is nothing more than a bland expansion upon a nonsensical reboot, and adds nothing to enrich or enhance the series as a whole.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Well, it’s finally Friday, which means that it’s time, once again, to delve into that wretched hive of scum and villainy, the Netflix online selection. This week, we’ll take a look at a film that I’d always heard good things about, but had never actually seen until recently. Black Snake Moan, directed by Craig Brewer, is arguably the best example of his work to date. Highly sexualized and intentionally provocative at times, Black Snake Moan explores the relationship between two individuals from opposite worlds as they share their suffering after being thrust together by a twist of fate.
Starring Samuel L. Jackson and Christina Ricci and including a cameo appearance by Justin Timberlake, the film follows the story of deeply religious Lazarus (Jackson) who finds sex addict Rae (Ricci) badly beaten and near death on the side of the road. Believing that it is his moral obligation to cure Rae of her sinful ways, Lazarus chains her to his radiator until she can prove to him that she has overcome her promiscuousness. What follows is a descent into the pent-up and suppressed suffering of both individuals and ultimately, they deliverance that they didn’t know they needed.
Jackson shines as the outwardly friendly but internally shaken Lazarus and performances can generally be commended all around. The surprising thing about Black Snake Moan, however, is that while the sexualization becomes almost fetishistic to a degree, it’s always done tastefully and adds weight to the story, rather than being a crass gimmick. Likewise, there is a gratifying amount of thematic subtlety to be found beneath the intentionally superficial sex. The soundtrack, likewise, is phenomenal, and plays heavily off of the bluesy influence of the deep south. If you’re looking for something a little different, yet still supremely satisfying, you could certainly do worse than Black Snake Moan.
Rating: 4 out of 5
(Photo by Scott Cook)
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of hearing Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone speak at a local college. Stone has recently released his documentary series The Untold History of the United States, and the accompanying book of the same name. According to stone, the series explores the darker side of American politics and policies, specifically during the Cold War era, that were and still are often ignored by conventional historical texts, yet have nevertheless profoundly impacted the world we live in today.
During his presentation at the college, Stone began with a summation of the events which influenced his life’s work and their consequent impact on American society. The second half of the presentation consisted of a Q and A session involving the students and faculty of the college.
Stone, a veteran of the Vietnam War, expressed that his experiences in combat during 1967 and 1968 had a profound impact on his later work, including Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, and the lesser known Heaven and Earth. Likewise, he shared with the audience his belief that when he entered the Army in 1967, he did so under the pretense that he was doing good for his country. “I was a conformist in the 1950s. We were scared.” said Stone, referring to the rampant McCarthyism of the period. After his stint in the military, Stone expressed that he had become enlightened. His eyes, so to speak, were opened to the travesty and hypocrisy of global conflict in the 20th century.
Over the course of the Q and A segment, Stone received questions ranging from his experiences as a screenwriter to the validity of Natural Born Killers as a satirical piece. Stone spoke at length about working with legendary actors like Al Pachino, Michael Douglas, Willem Dafoe, Charlie Sheen, and many more. One question in particular that Stone seemed especially passionate about was on the topic of his critically acclaimed film Wall Street. When asked if he had thought that the phrase “greed is good” would become so culturally iconic, Stone stated that the film was meant to portray the madness and material obsession during that particular point in time. He went on to say that the widespread adoption of the phrase proved his point exactly, and that only in a diseased culture would people come to idolize such crooked characters as Gordon Gekko.
Near the end of the presentation, a student asked if Stone had any advice to give to a young, aspiring filmmaker. “Crash the gate (of the movie studio) in Hollywood and don’t give up. Fight to get noticed. Don’t sell out. Find a way. The path to success is always crooked—never a straight line.”
The striking thing about Oliver Stone is that he is most decidedly from a different era. By that I mean that he is not only an old man, but he seems to be stuck- mentally stuck- in a different time period. One need only talk to the man for a few minutes to realize that the world as it is now- as it is to the younger generation, in all of its subtlety and complexity, is quite lost on him. That being said, I simply don’t see him creating any more sweeping cultural commentaries like Wall Street, simply because he’s from an age where incredible culturally shaping events and concepts, the internet for example, we’re far off dreams.
Nevertheless, Oliver Stone to this day remains one of the seminal American filmmakers. His work has inspired us, shocked us, got us talking, and stirred up controversy; after all, isn’t that the aim of any great artist? The evening ended with rapturous applause, and I can say that it was a pleasure to hear such a talented director speak.
Every now and then you’ll see a movie that will alter how you view a certain actor or director. Sometimes it’s for the best, while at other times you may consider driving to Hollywood to throw eggs at the offender’s car. In an unprecedented turn of events, I might now be able to excuse Michael Bay for some of his more obtuse faults after having seen Pain and Gain. Mind blowing, right? Well, while you’re busy scraping up your skull fragments, I’ll tell you why.
Michael Bay’s opinion of the general public seems to be that they’ll lapse into a coma if they’re not stimulated by explosions and the promise of tits every ten minutes, a mindset that certainly remains strong throughout Pain and Gain, but this time, there seems to be an underlying theme of self-parody and irony involved. Anyone already familiar with Bay’s work will quickly spot his fingerprints. His characteristic action sequences and fight scenes return, and he seizes every opportunity to explode something on-screen with rather worrying enthusiasm. Alas, this is Bay we’re talking about after all, so I would be more surprised if that kind of thing were absent.
These last few have been very busy years for my beloved Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and I am very happy to report that he’s finally hitting his stride. After having muddled his way through action flick after action flick, some much worse than others, Johnson as oblivious bodybuilder Paul Doyle is his best performance to date. Due in part to the fact that The Rock is a roided-up slab of meat in real life, he likely had a clear understanding of who the character was and where he was supposed to go with it. It was a riot to see him transition from a ex-con holy roller to a barely functioning coke fiend, and his antics provided hugely comedic payoffs. Mark Wahlberg as ringleader Dany Lugo likewise gives a great performance, though he too is likely playing a character similar to his own personality. By that, I mean he seems to be the perfect fit for that peculiar ‘bro’ archetype, which in all likelihood isn’t that far off from his real life persona. Golden Globe winner Tony Shalhoub (Monk) also makes an appearance as the phenomenally sleazy Victor Kershaw. Shalhoub holds nothing back in his depiction of Kershaw, and by the end of the film, he becomes a character that we love to hate and are almost glad that he gets what’s coming to him.
At it’s core, Pain and Gain is a comedy, not an action film. In this particular case, however, irony is the name of the game. Every aspect of the film has been calculated to achieve the height of it’s ironic effect. The score, for instance, is heavily dramatic which clashes with the moronic antics of the goofballs on-screen. The alleged role models of the protagonist are all a 12 year old’s worldview, ignorantly filled with hyper-masculine meatheads, not to mention the fact that they’re all fictional characters. The mantra of the protagonist- his combined motivation and justification for committing such terrible crimes- is taken straight from a self help informercial. The list goes on, but the main point to remember is that if you’re headed into Pain and Gain for the mega macho action, you’re in for a wonderful surprise.
In a departure from Bay’s usual work, Pain and Gain is a much more character driven story, and it does a surprisingly good job of making sure that the audience is invested in the stories of each of the three protagonist. In another unprecedented departure from Bay’s usual work, Pain and Gain is also quite good. The wonderfully successful comedy is balanced with Bay’s signature action in all the right places, which is in turn balanced by some definitely not unwelcome character building where it counts. In the end, Pain and Gain hugely fun and entertaining film and makes for a great time at the movies. Bay is by no means forgiven for making Transformers, but perhaps now I can consider him karmically neutral.
Rating: 4 out of 5
First off, let me take a moment, on behalf of the Simply Film crew, to apologize for last week’s little hiatus. The college student is a fickle beast at the best of times, and when finals roll around, we tend to withdraw into an autistic state, colloquially known as “couldn’t be asked.” Now that exams are coming to a close, we can get back to what really matters: the movies.
This week, the year’s first superhero flick hitting the big screen was Iron Man 3. I think the film has already made more money than exists on the entire planet, and if you do in fact posses the ability of sight, chances are good that you’ve already seen it around 2 or 3 times. Nevertheless, let’s take a look at what old Tony Stark has up his sleeve this time around.
Iron Man 3 is helmed by genre veteran Shane Black, who perhaps does action comedy better than anyone else in the industry. With accomplishments like Lethal Weapon, The Last Action Hero, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang filling out a robust resumé, the bar was set preposterously high for Iron Man 3- his first foray into the Marvel universe. Happily, Black doesn’t disappoint as far as both the action and the comedy are concerned, and real effort has been made to flesh out Tony Stark as a character as he interacts with people and situations in his trademark caustic manner. Action sequences, likewise, are explored in a fresh new way as Stark’s toys get a fun, new spin and provide for some enthralling visuals. In an unprecedented turn, I actually recommend investing in the jaw dropping 3D experience if you have the chance and are willing to drop the extra cash.
Robert Downey Jr. returns as Tony Stark, who at this point in his career has almost reached cult hero status, in the same vein as Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack. While I appreciate that RDJ is a polarizing figure, with some folks being off-put by his flamboyant personality, it’s basically accepted fact that no Iron Man, past or future, will equal his. RDJ captures Stark’s incorrigible roguishness and scathing brand of humor like no one else can. Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow also reprise their roles as Col. Rhodes (aka War Machine) and Pepper Pots, respectively. The surprise standout, however, was the supremely talented Ben Kingsley as an ‘international terrorist’ known as The Mandarin. Kingsley gave a delightful and genuinely charming performance, which was unfortunately let down by some extraordinarily disappointing writing.
I’ve got a slew of issues with this film which are exacerbated by a thick coating of disappointment. The film had so much going for it: the cast was talented, it had a budget larger than the GDP’s of several third world countries combined, and it had the entire wealth of the Marvel canon to draw from. Why, then, did it ultimately fall flat?
Good question! The story is a good place to start. The weird thing about Iron Man 3 is the Iron Man as a charter is barely involved in it at all. From the beginning, he’s reactionary, and simply responds to what’s happening around him. In a normal hero story, the plot is driven by the actions of the protagonist, which allow the audience to get invested in the struggles of a single individual. Here, Iron Man could have sat around catching up on episodes of Game of Thrones (save the final showdown, obviously) and things would have been largely the same. In the second act, the story takes a wrong turn at the corner of Contrived Cove and Arbitrary Avenue, with characters serendipitously being in the right place at the right time when Tony Stark just so happens to blow into town. The relationship between Pepper and Tony is quite stilled and unconvincing, which is important because the old girl is kidnapped (Kidnapping? In a Shane Black movie?) and the audience feels no motivation to get her back. Come to think of it, her whole role in relation to Tony is strange too. She seems to show no empathy towards Tony when he is shown suffering from severe symptoms of PTSD, even when Tony entreats her to be patient with him. With this kind of unconvincing relationship, it’s hard to get engaged in the personal struggles of the characters.
And the twist. Oh, the twist! I can’t really talk about this next section without revealing the SPOILERS BELOW, so be warned. About half way through the film, The Mandarin- the big baddie that the whole movie has been hyping up- is revealed to be nothing more than a hoax, orchestrated by a character we were introduced to earlier. But here’s the thing: The Mandarin is replaced by a completely generic, uninteresting, uninspired, insipid, bland, banal, trite, and ultimately boring charter who has no distinguishing characteristics aside from being the evil white guy du jour. With an absolutely ambiguous and arbitrary motivation, Whitey seems to want to be in charge just for the sake of being in charge. That’s not good storytelling! That’s just laziness! At least The Mandarin was interesting to watch.
To me, Iron Man as a series is finished. I was curious to see how the franchise could continue to ramp up the stakes after the presumably world-shattering events of The Avengers. My big questing was “Where do we go from here?” Sadly, Iron Man 3 provides no answer, and doesn’t seem to keep the series fresh enough to warrant another sequel. Nevertheless, we’re reminded at the during the credits that “Tony Stark will return,” but the only place that I see him still being relevant is in The Avengers 2.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
