Mutants in the 60s

(Click image for trailer.)

X-Men: First Class (2011), by Matthew Vaughn                     7/10

     Greetings to all! First of all, I’ve been quite busy with, you know, life, but I’m excited to be back on game. There is a whole bunch of new ideas floating around in my head to make this blog as awesome as possible for me and and for you guys, all of it coming soon over the summer.  So you should stay tuned for those. I still want to know what you think about my reviews, or the movies I’ve been reviewing so feel free to speak your mind in the comments!

      Now, let’s get to business.

     Last night I was finally able to geek out and went and saw X-Men: First Class. For a long time since this film was in the making, I was very skeptical about it. It was mostly because the past two X-Men films were such disappointments, especially to comics fanboys like myself. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was entertaining, yet somehow did not deliver as well as was expected in many aspects that I do not want to get into now.

“Fail…?”

And of course the biggest tragedy of the X-men trilogy was the inconclusive, confusing, disappointing, terribly misleading X-Men 3: The Last Stand. This one was definitely entertaining, but the story was terribly developed and played little relation to the original X-Men story; it also did not make justice to pretty much ANY of the mutants at all. I understand that movies that are adaptations are almost never completely faithful to the books, or in this case to the comics. However, to consciously change it as much as they did into the crappy film that it is in a time where comic book film adaptations are changing film in several ways is not smart. Comics fanboys or people who keep melancholic memories of the X-Men cartoons want to see at least SOME similarities in the movies. Compare for example other comic book movies that were much more successful that these two X-Men movies.

     While X-Men: First Class does not base the story on the original comic or cartoon, he took great inspiration in them and was successful in 1) making an X-Men movie that is better and more entertaining than any X-Men movie we’ve seen so far and 2) in using some plot concepts of the original comics to create a new origins story that both fits as a prequel to the latest X-Men movies, and also annuls them. The movie is set in the 60s, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) is attempting to cause a Third World War against the humans, CIA agent Moira (Rose Byrne) contacts Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), recently graduated as a professor, to help her stop Shaw from causing Nuclear War. With his knowledge in genetics and mutations such as the one he possessed and government’s secret advanced technology they recruit the first X-Men to represent humanity and put a stop to Shaw’s plan. Meanwhile, a very detailed origin story for both Professor X and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) develops with flashbacks that turn out to be relevant with Sebastian Shaw and his master plan.

     In his second comic book adaptation, Kick-Ass being his first one, director Matthew Vaughn delivers an action-packed film filled with the X-Men adventures that the comics and cartoons were recognized by. Effects and CGI were exquisitely realistic, which is always good in these types of film; we as an audience love to be fooled by film into believing magic, fantasy and the impossible. The script was good for the most part; there are some pretty surprising scenes that will make your jaw drop, but some of the dialogue seemed too recycled and cheesy. Actors did a good job for the most part, especially the main characters, James McAvoy as a young Charles Xavier and Michael Fassbender as Erik Lensherr (Magneto). Jennifer Lawrence played a very good, more sympathetic Mystique, but her character lacked presence on-screen and little importance to the plot. Kevin Bacon did a very good job playing a comic book villain, believable and scary; an evil Nazi scientist with the terrifying mutation that allowed him to absorb any form of energy and and reflect it and who wanted to trigger a Third World War against the humans.

“You can take away the cool mutants, but you can’t take away my cuteness.”

    Yes, we do not see most of the mutants we’ve already come to love like Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, Rogue, or Wolverine (*cough* Cameo! *cough cough*) and it may still be very different than what us fanboys might or might not expect, but it still manages to give a good time at the movies. And besides, the mutants we get to meet here are pretty awesome too, Beast turned out to be a great character in this movie, and Banshee and Havoc deliver quite well in the midst of the action, Azazel sort of looked like a teenage Satan, but Emma Frost does know how to look sexy when she’s all diamond-coated… and otherwise. And while X-Men: First Class still seems like something’s missing, some underdeveloped characters and plots, unwritten like a lost scene in the screenplay, this one’s a great time at the movies, don’t miss it! ‘Cause Summer is not looking good for movies this year, again.  7/10.

     Thanks for sharing and feel free to speak your mind! Let me know your opinion in the comments!

     Until next time, This is Freddy Lizardz with Words on Film. Peace.

Meta-Film and Heads Exploding

(Click image for trailer.)

Rubber (2011), by Quentin Dupieux                           Rating: 3/10

     Ah, indie films. How weird and unique you can be.

     I have said in previous post how I love to watch indie films for the most part, because it is in those films where most times one can see films that are significantly different from mainstream Hollywood films. It is in indie films where filmmakers feel more free to break the rules of films in order to show something different. In many ways, indie films are all about style. And in these and many other ways, Rubber is the best example. However, the exploitation of all of these concepts also mark the films demise.

     Allow me to explain. Rubber is fully and completely driven by its meta-film concept. That is to say when a film turns conscious of itself as a film, or a film about film. The best example in popular culture of this is the Scream franchise by Wes Craven. In Scream, the characters are for the most part conscious that they are in a horror movie, or at least they know they need to know and follow the rules of the genre to survive from the killer, Ghostface, all while talking and commenting in small talk and short dialogue about what a horror movie should be. In this way, the result is a horror movie director talking about what a horror movie should or should not be through his horror film.

(“What’s your favorite scary movie?”)

     If Rubber had pores, they would be conscious that they are tiny little holes on somebody’s skin that ooze sweat once in a while when that person exercises or it’s really hot outside. The plot revolves around a group of people who are watching a “film” happen before their eyes in the middle of the desert about a tire with free will and telekinetic powers and a very bad sense of humor and big urge to explode things, especially human heads and harmless animals, with its… mind? Anyways, that is all. It’s only 87 minutes long and it gets tiring in fifteen minutes into the movie, or less. But see, the movie does not have a point and that’s the point of it. The movie focuses on the “no reason” in the everyday life, and, most importantly, in the film industry. The film is a direct insult to Hollywood in the most explicit ways possible. There is nothing subtle about their commentaries on film against Hollywood standards and rules. Which is understandable, and it fits pretty well in the “no reason” concept.

     But the joke is on itself, because nothing about the movie really works. An absurd movie with the only purpose but to be absurd for the sake of an artistic commentary… I felt on an Andy Warhol exhibit, or maybe I was experiencing the resurrection of Marcel Duchamp.

(I present to you a work of art.)

The film is not terrifying, it is not funny, it is not fun to watch, it is extremely simplistic in its “complexity,” and to put it simply, it makes no sense to make a movie about not making sense because people do not want to see film to get bored or insulted. We want to see film that entertain us and/or that it is meaningful in one way or the other.

     The problem with this movie, and maybe what could blur the opinion of people on it, is that this movie is directed to a specific audience, and that audience is Hollywood. The problem is that they know that Hollywood is not going to like it at all, and they do not care, and they should care. If they want to break the rules and do something different, by all means do it, but you have to put some effort in it. You can still insult Hollywood and make a surreal film and make it weird and different and still manage to make a good movie, Enter the Void by Gaspar Noé, for example. Take any successful indie film director and study their movies. Most of them do meta-film all the time…

… like Quentin Tarantino, who, while overrated and a douche-bag is still a filmmaking genius. I mean, Inglorious Basterds was all about meta-film, using film as a weapon and breaking all kinds of filmmaking rules, including going against history itself suffocating Adolf Hitler with burning film and blowing his face with a hundred bullets.

     I can keep giving examples, but that will only be a continuous rant. So all I am going to add is that this film is not only extremely and unnecessarily conscious of itself ALL the time, it also intends to be conscious of what the audience is thinking while watching the film, which is honestly annoying and not funny at all in this case. And worst of all, it gives itself WAY too much credit. (Sighs.) 3/10.

     Until next time, This is Freddy Lizardz with Words on Film. Peace.

Thanks for sharing and commenting!

 

Comics, Surrealism and Schizofrenia

(Click image for trailer.)

Super, by James Gunn                               Rating: 6/10

     The world of comic books has seen an incredible rise in audiences ever since the first installments of X-Men and Spiderman were released in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. More and more comic book adaptations are made each day and approximately twenty comic book adaptations will be released by the beginning of 2013 from today. As a result, comic books still prove to be an important influence in film as well as vice versa. People did not use to think much of comics, and most people still don’t, yet they do not say the same thing about their adaptations into film, for the most part people take them seriously. Comics have always influenced popular culture the same way that film has and they always will.

     However, as a result of the new “rise of the superhero” in film, and especially because of the era in which we live in, where technology is so advanced it’s finally become overrated, people get more and more fussy about their movies and their little adaptations. Society has grown so visually unaffected and morbid that we demand reality even in the most fantastical and unrealistic of films. We want realistic, more empathetic characters in our comics and cartoons and we want graphic violence realistic effects in our movies. And most importantly, we want to see superheroes that are just like us, human, no powers; we want to feel that being a superhero might actually be possible.

                                                    

     Contrary to last year’s hit comic book adaptation Kick-Ass (2010), Super is the most violent, most senseless and misleading film that has come out this year. Yes, Kick-Ass was overly controversial and violent, but the violence in Kick-Ass, while it appeared to be real, it also made clear that it was classic, unrealistic comic book action. Was it received as a film as well as it might have been received as a comic book? No. Was it still successful? Did people like it?They loved it, including myself. Because, regardless of the controversy of seeing a ten year old girl killing unmercifully and as skillfully in such an exaggerated and graphic manner, people accepted it as comic book action for a mature audience. However, Super is not a comic book adaptation and it makes absolutely no attempt in imitating one, which is not necessarily bad, but in this case it did not work as well as it appeared it would.

     The story of Super  revolves around Frank (Rainn Wilson, AKA Dwight in The Office) life-long loser who considers the day of his wedding with his alcoholic and drug-addict in rehabilitation wife, Sara (Liv Tyler) the best day of his life. Sara leaves him for an annoying drug dealer named Jock (Kevin Bacon), and Frank’s attempts to “save” his wife are all failures, his wife wants the drugs, and does not want anything to do with poor Frank. So, Frank turns to God, who “tells him” in a hallucination that includes Japanese Hentai tentacle pornography, cranium removal and the “touch of God” that he should make a costume and fight evildoers, such as drug dealers, like Jock, douche-bags, pedophiles, line-cutters, and others.

(I wasn’t kidding about the tentacle porn.)

When Frank realizes he is useless without powers or weapons, he chooses a wrench as his iconic weapon of “The Crimson Bolt,” his superhero name, and after he beats people halfway to death he would yell at them his catchphrase “Shut Up Crime!” Meanwhile, a psychotic, man-raping, blood-and-guts loving young woman who works in a comic book store, Libby (Ellen Page), recognizes Frank as the Crimson Bolt from the news and decides to become his “sexy sidekick,” Boltie, on his quest to save his estranged crack-head of a wife from the evil bad man who took her away.

     What’s misleading about this movie is the fact that it is supposed to be a dark comedy full of comic book references and lots of violence in between. But it turned out to be so dark that it was hardly ever funny, and the jokes that are more emphasized seem awkward and out of place. Literally, take any joke you might have seen Dwight pull of in The Office, insert it in Kick-Ass or some other movie of the sort, and there you have the jokes you will see in Super.

(Seriously.)

Also as a result, there is absolutely no attempt in showing any good morals that are so significant even in the most violent and catastrophic of comic books. In the end, both Frank and Libby are simply psychotic maniacs with a severe case of schizophrenia living in their own little world where they can kill and beat the soul out of pedestrians for no valid reason and get away with it. Because the cops don’t really seem to exist in this movie, and the ones that are actually present in the movie don’t even seem to know what’s going on, even though the Crimson Bolt is all over the news. It’s in this way that the “reality” of the film is completely contradictory, the only thing “real” about this film is how realistic the violence and gore of the movie is. Everything else might be the director’s dream-adventure in the land of Oz.

     I must admit I was expecting a lot more from this film, but I didn’t get it. It was still interesting to watch, and let me tell you, to see the magnificently quirky and adorable Ellen Page laughing as maniacally as Freddy Kruger as she killed and man-raped Rainn Wilson was probably one of the most fun experiences in a movie, while it lasted… If you want to see a very good movie about superheroes with no powers with complicated and paradoxical plots that will resemble and/or represent our own society and the social issues we are facing today, DO NOT see this movie.  Go see Batman, or Watchmen or something. If you want to see Liv Tyler doing drugs, Dwight from The Office being Dwight from The Office, Kevin Bacon being a douche-bag and Ellen Page dressed like a gay thirteen year old sidekick in the 50s killing and screaming like a maniac, then go see Super.

(This is as funny as it gets. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.)

      I’ll rate it 6/10 just because it wasn’t a completely bad experience in the movies, it was still fun to watch, but don’t go looking for a deeper, more intellectual approach to it because you will only get what you see. This film would have definitely worked better as an action/drama, the comedy just makes it awkward because you can clearly see that the movie is trying to be funny among all the obscurity of the plot and the characters. And the moral of the film at the end does not follow any logic at all, making it even harder take the movie seriously. The only logic and reality this movie follows is that of a very geeky Patrick Bateman.

     Until next time, I am Freddy Lizardz with Words on Film. Peace.

Thanks for sharing and commenting!

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

(Click image for trailer)

127 Hours (2010), by Danny Boyle                       8.5/10

     There are films that by knowing some of its details before it comes out everyone knows if it will be successful or not. Big franchises, for example, usually do extremely well in the box office even if the film turns out to be a disappointment (which is not always the case); fans are usually fans forever and no matter what. Other people, though, are more interested in style than in genre. What I mean with this is that when people are familiar with very acclaimed cult-film directors, most of the times we also know what to expect of the film; in this case, the fans fall in love with the director’s style and influences not with a particular movie or the other. Among these directors, some examples I could mention could be Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrik, Steven Spielberg, Tim Burton, Quentin Tarantino (and of course his buddy Robert Rodriguez), Danny Boyle, and most recently, Darren Aronofsky.

However, for the purposes of this blog post, I want to talk about Danny Boyle.

     Although Danny Boyle has made a huge success of most of his films, like Trainspotting (1996), 28 Days Later (2002), and most recently, Slumdog Millionaire (2008), his style is most clearly not tied to any genre in any absolute way, contrary to other great directors who, while original and unique, their style depends on their most influential genres. Some examples could include Tim Burton’s dark humor, fantasy/horror style, Tarantino’s exploitation movies, or Wes Craven’s long list of C-list horror films. Boyle, on the other hand can jump between genre’s extremely easily and still mark his films with his unique upbeat, non-stop action style and make a success out of his films. From a film about junkie life in London, to a story of fallen utopia in an estranged island, to a classic cult-zombie-horror classic, to an Indian version of “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?”, to one of the most unique movies of the last year. This way, Boyle has proven many times what it takes to make a good film that is both entertaining, stylistic and heartbreakingly emotional at the same time, and 127 Hours is absolutely no exception.

     The only things that kept me skeptical (and very interested) about this film before I finally saw it were two magical phrases that pretty much always guarantees an enormous box office, but not always guarantees a successful movie. These magical words are:

1) Adaptation.

or

2) “Based” or “Inspired on a true story.”

The story and plot of the film was pretty well know before the movie was even made. Aron Ralston, the film’s protagonist, wrote a book called “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” about the terrible events that lead him to lose an arm while rock climbing the Blue John Canyon in Utah and how he survived the whole ordeal. And that’s pretty much the whole plot of the movie, there is nothing else to say about it.

(No.)

Or so I thought. I kept thinking, “Man, this movie’s going to be lame and boring. A dude stuck between rocks for a whole movie?” But do not worry, Boyle has proven me wrong, and I am proud to admit it.

(The real Aron Ralston and James Franco.)

    James Franco did an amazing job acting as Aron Ralston, and came up strong with a spectacular, tear wrenching performance as a man who strived for life, experience and adrenaline more than anything in the world has to face the death and destruction of all of it in the most terrible manner. To my surprise, the movie was not about him losing his arm at all, it was about growing up, accepting your mistakes and overcoming your pride; it was about holding tight onto life and onto everything and everyone that you love at all times, no matter what. This movie shows us that no matter how terrible and scary things might seem to us at a certain moment in our life, there is still so much to live for, and we have all the strength we need to overcome our problems.

     The script was excellently written, shows perfect balance between action and drama, and it really proves how important character development can be in any narrative. And that’s all this film is: character development. When we finally give up hope for Aron, when he gives up hope himself, he jumps off into a dream state that takes him backwards in time. His memories and hallucinations become his only friends, and in the meantime, we understand why he is the way he is, and why he feels the way he feels, and most importantly, we see him grow and change as this experience affects his life in every way. When we think Aron has gone insane, and he feels he cannot trust his own sanity, that is the exact moment we see who Aron really is and in which ways he is changing. And when the most gruesome, most disgusting scenes are shown to us, we don’t even care, and neither does he, we just want him to survive for the his sake and ours!

(Stress can be very serious business.)

     If this film is something, boring is not it. This film is exciting and terrifying and stressful and, in many ways, beautiful all the way through until the end of the credits. With amazing nature shots and great surreal scenes that are almost poetic, 127 Hours is a film about hitting rock bottom, literally, and finding your inner strength to overcome every single obstacle in your way and grab onto life with all your might, survive and live. And that, my friends, is a message that every single person can relate to. I rate it 8.5/10.

     Until next time, this is Freddy Lizardz with Words on Film. Peace.

Thanks for sharing and commenting!

Love and Other Drugs

(Click image for trailer)

Love and Other Drugs (2010), by Edward Zwick          8.5/10

     Remember that Romantic Comedy you watched the other day? You know, the one with Katherine Heigl in it? No, not that one. I mean the one where she falls in love with the man she would despise in ordinary situations, but then that thing happens and she’s forced to spend more time with him, resulting in a series of comedic mishaps and a cheesy love story ending. Yeah, you know the one that I mean. Or have you seen the one with that guy who’s in a bunch of movies? You know the one where he’s a ladies-man but can’t get the girl he loves to like him and when she does, he naturally does something stupid, ruining the chances for a great relationship with the girl of his dreams, but then he has a change of mind and heart and does something very romantic and wins the girl, yet again, resulting in yet another ‘happily ever after'?

     (Yep. That one.)

     I will not criticize any movie for following the rules of its genre, especially since I actually have enjoyed some romantic comedies quite a bit. Knocked Up is hilarious and mostly realistic, Sandra Bullock is amazing in The Proposal and Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher, well, come on, two great actors always striving to appear more of a dumbass than their last movie, comedy doesn’t get better than that. But the truth is that most of these movies, Hollywood movies in general, not only romantic comedies, follow simple formulas to attract audiences, usually with extremely attractive actors and actresses appearing naked or in their underwear at some point in the movie. And don’t get me wrong, we all fall for it all the time. Yes, we might see a movie for more reasons other than eye-candy, but let’s be real, who would watch The Ugly Truth, for example, if instead of Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler the movie starred, I don’t know, Courtney Love and John C. Reilly?

 

 

 

(You get the point.)

 

 

 

In any case, there’s nothing wrong in following an overused formula when writing screenplays. The only big problem with that is that it gets too old too fast. And romantic comedies have been going on since forever, that’s why it is so challenging to make one and be taken seriously (like most genres, anyways); because there is nothing new about it. It’s like watching the same movie with different good looking actors and actresses in different times over and over again. And we are used to seeing the same thing happen, it’s hard to even care for these characters, for these stories, at all. Actors like Michael Cera, Katherine Heigl, Sandra Bullock, Jennifer Anniston, Hugh Grant, Ashton Kutcher, Ryan Reynolds and Matthew McConaughey , and many others have struggled with the “romantic comedy tool” stamp at some point or another because of this reason; they became real life archetypes of their characters, which in effect, starts making people yawn, close their eyes and drool all over their popcorn.

     That’s why Love and Other Drugs is so successful. Not only does it manages to fit every single romantic comedy rule and stereotype (incredibly attractive male protagonist for the women and an extraordinarily sexy love interest for the male audiences, both in the peak of their acting careers and getting naked even in the trailer; basic romantic comedy plot) but it brings out the reality of the plot and forgets all about perfect, ideal love stories.

     The film introduces Jaime (Jake Gyllenhaal) an electronics salesman in the year 1996. His cool-guy charms and good looks makes him very good at his job, but he throws it all away when he sleeps with the boss’s girlfriend during his shift. Emotionally shunned from his family of successful doctors and medics, Jaime decides to find a job in an area closer to medicine, so he gets a job in Pharmaceutical sales selling Zoloft, direct competition of Prozac at the time. But things are not as easy as they seem, so he has to count on his good looks to get what he wants yet again. When he finally bribes an acclaimed doctor (Hank Azaria) to let him talk to some of his patients, he meets Maggie, Anne Hathaway’s amazing performance as a very sick 26 year old woman with Parkinson’s disease; a performance that will make you both laugh with her quirky personality and immediately sympathize with her; it’s a great example of how good screenplays and amazing acting can make a character real in an instant. Jaime is immediately attracted to Maggie and pursues to get her attention. Their first actual encounter results in an extended, purely sexual relationship, while discussing the issues of a modern relationship and the dilemmas that complicated diseases like Parkinson’s can have in people’s psychology, and therefore, in people’s relationships. With an ugly looking ally, Jaime and his antithesis  brother later partake in the adventures of selling the new best-selling sex-drug of the late nineties…

(The blue pill.)

… and being very damn good at it. Meanwhile, Jaime realizes that Maggie is the only person who really gets know him, even better than his own family and friends and that she’s the only thing that he’s ever wanted, but her frustrations with her illness leads her to make self-destructive decisions, depressions and alienation, separating herself from him, not wanting to fall in love with Jaime, pulling him into her tragic life. Jaime, then, has to decide if he wants to proceed in life unloved and misunderstood, or take his chances with the one he loves and sacrificing everything for her.

     Though this movie sounds terribly cheesy, like all romantic comedies, it completely works and does not comes out as cheesy at any moment. Yes it has its inevitable cheesy moment a couple of times, but it does not ruin the movie at all, it actually boosts the drama and moves the plot in a very realistic way. The screenplay was very well written, and Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway  proved that great acting sometimes is everything to make an amazing movie. Their characters are as real as it gets, and everyone can relate to them at some point. Their story contemplates and disambiguates modern relationships and sees into their soul. It also spreads awareness of a most terrible disease, like Parkinson’s, and ironically shows us that real life is never like in the movies.

     Overall, the movie is a fun time, it has many good laughs, is well acted, well directed and well written; a good, meaningful variation in the romantic “dramedy” genre. If you’re looking for good eye-candy and/or sex scenes…

…you will definitely get it in this film. A lot of it, and it actually plays really well with the plot; nothing vulgar, too graphic or excessive (it’s not like we’re watching an episode of The Tudors or Spartacus). In fact, their sexual relationship and the way it portrays is actually the most meaningful part of the plot other than Maggie’s disease and Jaime’s success in selling Viagra. Would definitely recommend it, even to people who are not fans of the genre. Very good movie. 8.5/10.

     Until next time, this is Freddy Lizardz with Words on Film. Peace.

Thanks for sharing!