Monday, July 07, 2008

TV premiering tonight: Elvis Mitchell: Under the Influence

I've never been particularly fond of Elvis Mitchell; although he's not really a film critic anymore, he's always seemed to me to be on the wrong side of the line between analyst and insider. I don't have any strong memories of reading any of his reviews in the New York Times (admittedly, I probably read very few), but I do remember this sort of nauseatingly self-serving and sycophantic Q&A with Javier Bardem from Interview Magazine, which immediately put me off reading anything else by him. Rumors were that he left the NYT in a huff over being passed over for the chief film critic's job in favor of A.O. Scott (here's an interesting New York Magazine piece about that, which also details his many, many conflicts of interest). I also seem to remember Gawker passing along gossip that he spent as much time at Harvard hitting on female students as he did teaching class, although I can't find any evidence of that anymore.

The point is, going into Mitchell's new TCM interview series, Under the Influence, I already had an innate dislike of the guy to overcome. And he certainly lived up to my impression, fawning all over his guests, laughing uproariously at anything mildly funny and basically positioning himself as the next James Lipton. But Influence is no Inside the Actors Studio; it has an unclear focus that finds Mitchell half the time grilling the guests on their cinematic influences, as the title implies, and half the time talking instead about their own careers. The half-hour format, even without commercials, is not nearly enough time to sufficiently cover the oeuvres of figures like Sydney Pollack (in what may be his last taped interview) and Bill Murray, the subjects of the two episodes I saw. The anecdotes are broken up with movie clips, some illuminating, some useless.

Pollack's episode works almost in spite of Mitchell, since the late actor/director has some fascinating stories about working with Burt Lancaster and studying acting in New York. But Murray seems almost annoyed to be there at all, and Mitchell is not a great interviewer; he's so into appearing chummy with his subjects that he never pushes them to reveal anything insightful. I'm all in favor of exploring modern cinema figures' connections to classic film, or of TCM having its own on-air personality to compete with Lipton, but this show doesn't succeed at doing anything other than proving that Elvis Mitchell has lots of famous friends. Turner Classic Movies, Mondays, 8 p.m.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Movies opening this week

Hancock (Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, dir. Peter Berg)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
This movie went through several different directors in its preproduction stage, suffered from last-minute reshoots and ended up with a truncated running time to achieve a PG-13 rating. So it's not really surprising that it's choppy, inconsistent and disjointed. It is a shame, though, because I like the idea of a superhero movie not based on an existing comic or TV show - really, a blockbuster movie of any kind not based on recycled source material is welcome. But the filmmakers clearly don't know what kind of movie they want to make, and throw all their ideas into one big heap. If they had dropped the lame mythology and played up the sarcastic, dark comedic take on superheroes, this movie might have turned out to be worthwhile. Wide release

When Did You Last See Your Father? (Jim Broadbent, Colin Firth, Matthew Beard, Juliet Stevenson, dir. Anand Tucker)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Maybe Firth has just been typecast so much as the good-hearted but dull guy that all he can play is mopey and awkward, but he really sort of drags this movie down. Not that it's spectacular anyway, but given how much verve Broadbent puts into his performance, a better turn from the ostensible lead might have elevated this beyond mediocre and forgettable, which is where it ended up. Opened limited June 6; in Las Vegas this week

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Summer TV update

Fear Itself (NBC, Thursdays, 10 p.m.)
Really, there is no reason I should be watching this show. It is totally, completely bad, its best moments barely achieving mediocrity. But I am a sucker for the horror anthology, and I would have watched every episode of this show's predecessor, Masters of Horror, if I had Showtime. (I did sit through the entire Nightmares & Dreamscapes series on TNT, as documented here.) Thus I will probably watch every episode of this lame series, hoping each week that the latest combination of mildly well-known horror writer and director (generally not exactly people you would call "masters") will somehow magically churn out a halfway decent (or even halfway scary) piece of entertainment. I have sort of appreciated the stupidly obvious twist endings of some recent episodes, mainly because of how dumb they are (the one in last week's episode, with the bride who thinks her husband-to-be might be a serial killer, was unbelievably nonsensical). And I suppose the acting isn't bad. But none of the episodes has been even remotely well-written, and they're all padded to reach the hourlong length when The Twilight Zone proved years ago that the best format for stories like these is half that. NBC doesn't help by plastering the "scary" show with gaudy promo graphics on the bottom of the screen. If there end up being one or two genuinely decent episodes in the entire run, then I'll probably consider the effort spent watching it a success, sadly.

The Middleman (ABC Family, Mondays, 10 p.m.)
I was a fan of the Middleman comic book, and the show captures the tone and appeal of it very well (not surprising since the comic's writer, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, is also the creator and executive producer of the show). It's goofy and cheesy and clearly done on a minuscule budget, but there's a genuine cleverness to the writing and a clear sense of not taking anything particularly seriously. Natalie Morales is maybe not quite what I would have imagined for Wendy when I was reading the comic, but she seems to be making the role her own. I'm looking forward to seeing what the producers do once they've exhausted the source material (which seems to be happening pretty quickly). I think this is an idea that could generate tons of fun, silly, over-the-top stories, and clearly the limited budget hasn't stopped them from embracing all the high-concept ideas from the comic. There are enough ongoing elements (the mystery of what happened to Wendy's dad, the potential romance between the Middleman and Wendy's roommate, etc.) to keep viewers coming back week after week, but episodes are self-contained enough that anybody can happen across one and enjoy it. It's not brilliant, and sometimes it seems to be trying too hard, but at the very least it's the best thing I've ever seen on ABC Family.

Swingtown (CBS, Thursdays, 10 p.m.)
I was pretty lukewarm on this show in my initial review (based only on watching the pilot), but it's grown on me a little since then. I don't know if I would have given it as generous a shot were it on during the fall against a whole bunch of other stuff, but during the summer it's worth spending the time to see if it improves and to catch the parts of it that do work. I'm totally sold on Lana Parrilla and Grant Show as the swingin'-est couple of the '70s; Parrilla especially does fantastic work as the sexy and manipulative but entirely lovable Trina. And their conflicted neighbors Bruce and Susan, the show's main characters, have a sort of interesting complexity to them. Since there are really only three couples to follow, the show isn't as soapy as I thought it might be, and seems potentially in danger of running out of steam. And the plots about the kids are never as strong as those about the adults. Still, the producers seem to be willing to follow through on their premise and really examine how sexual experimentation affects different sorts of couples, which is a positive consequence of not being able to show too much skin; denied titillation, they're actually resorting to critical thinking.

Credit where it's due

It seems only fair, after my rant against Netflix a couple of weeks ago for planning to do away with their Profiles feature, to note that the company has indeed backed up their reputation for customer-friendliness by listening to complaints and deciding to retain Profiles. They may have seemed sort of hostile and dismissive at first, but this to me shows that they are still concerned with making their service work even for a small but vocal group of subscribers (the Profiles feature is said to be employed by only 1 percent of users). So I want to show my appreciation, especially since it will make my life a lot easier not having to switch anything over. Thanks, Netflix.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Movies opening this week

How the Garcia Girls Spent Their Summer (Elizabeth Peña, American Ferrera, Lucy Gallardo, dir. Georgina Garcia Riedel)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
For the first maybe half of this movie, I actually thought it was pretty great, but Riedel lets the story meander on a little too long and heads into a few too many fairly obvious places. Still, the acting (especially from the consistently underappreciated Peña) carries the movie through the rough spots, and it's a nice little indie drama that deserves to be seen. Opened limited May 16; in Las Vegas this week

Mongol (Tadanobu Asano, Khulan Chuluun, Sun Honglei, dir. Sergei Bodrov)
I saw this movie probably at the height of my festival fatigue in the middle of CineVegas, so that may be part of the reason why I found it so dull and uninvolving. Despite featuring a number of huge battle sequences, it's basically about Genghis Khan the devoted husband, and the love story is completely boring and bland. Even the battles seem rote and unoriginal, echoes of other, better historical epics past. That's not to say that there aren't some decent sequences; Bodrov gives the story a suitably grand feel, and there are interesting insights into Mongolian culture. It's nowhere near as bad as last year's abysmal Kazakh historical epic Nomad, which Bodrov co-directed; it's just consistently mediocre, and its focus on Genghis Khan's early years (as the alleged first part of a trilogy) means that many of the bloodiest, most exciting parts of his life are passed over in favor of a trite love story. Opened limited June 6; in Las Vegas this week

WALL-E (Voices of Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin, dir. Andrew Stanton)
The praise for this movie has been overwhelming, so I don't want to overstate its quality (pity the four poor souls who've posted negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and earned a flood of insulting comments as a result). But it's quite good, easily one of my favorite Pixar efforts. Just a few weeks ago I was complaining that Kung Fu Panda had a high level of technical sophistication but very little in the way of style or artistry. This movie is the opposite: Obviously it too is very technically accomplished, but it's also clearly a unique artistic vision with style and purpose. It's a little simplistic and quite predictable, but Stanton turns the simplicity into part of the appeal, doing away even with dialogue for much of the movie. WALL-E's antics are deserving of the Charlie Chaplin comparisons, although the social message of the movie is just as broad and loosely defined. It's not an unqualified masterpiece, and I still think Stanton's last film, Finding Nemo, is better, but it's a wonderful example of ambition and artistry in big-studio filmmaking, and I'd be happy to see it make a ton of money. Wide release

Wanted (James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, dir. Timur Bekmambetov)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I feel much the same way about this movie as I did about 300: It's been crafted with a great deal of impressive-looking and distinctive flash that both distracts from and highlights its morally reprehensible core; it will appeal strongly to a certain class of fanboy (i.e., probably the same people who loved 300); its fans will love it unconditionally and defend it vehemently; and yet, it's a cynical, manipulative appeal to the baser instincts of people with pent-up rage and no concern for story or character development or humanity in the movies they watch. I really don't mean to get up on a moral high horse, and I am certainly the last person to pass judgment on someone else's values, but something about this movie's callous disregard for both human life and human emotion really bugged me. I read the first issue of the comic this is based on and felt equally disgusted, and the movie bears out all those arrogant, self-satisfied, solipsistic themes in a big ol' action movie that 14-year-old boys of all ages will, sadly, eat right up. Wide release

Monday, June 23, 2008

TV premiering tonight: Atom TV

Apparently the veteran video website Atom Films is getting a makeover as Atom.com, a web portal for original comedy programming tied in to Comedy Central (both are now owned by Viacom), but as of this writing the site looks the same to me (here's an article on the switchover from back in November). Regardless, this new partnership has resulted in Atom TV, a Comedy Central show supposedly designed to highlight the best content from Atom and, presumably, get people to check out the site. It is thus odd that this show is being buried at two in the morning in the middle of the week, although the network is at least promoting it by sending out preview screeners to the press.

Not that I would recommend watching the show anyway - most of the content in the first two episodes ranges from horrendously unfunny to merely pointless, and the efforts to Internet-ify the visual presentation come off as particularly clueless and desperate. A status bar at the bottom of the screen that notifies you how much of each segment is left mirrors what you'd see in an online video, but mostly I found myself constantly glancing at it to see how much longer I'd have to endure a given video. The comments from users that pop up reminded me of something you might find on TRL, although at least the producers are brave enough to include the occasional "This is the worst video ever" comment among the dominant "This is awesome" ones.

The most interesting thing to me, actually, was the occasional bit of onscreen info that touted the pedigree of the makers of these videos. The site is spending a decent amount of money to get experienced TV and film creators to make new videos, but it's definitely not worth it. Almost every bit takes one joke and beats it into the ground, or just throws out random absurdity for three minutes or so. Such wastes of time are somehow more tolerable online, when you're only half paying attention to them anyway, but on your TV, even in the middle of the night, standards are slightly higher, and this doesn't even pass the Half-Baked-airing-for-the-millionth-time muster of typical late-night Comedy Central programming. Comedy Central, Monday nights (Tuesday mornings), 2 a.m.

CineVegas wrap

The CineVegas film festival ended yesterday, and I managed to at least sleep in today even though I had some other, unrelated work to finish up. As usual, it was both a great time and tremendously exhausting, and I'm a bit relieved and a bit sad that it's over. Also as seems to often be the case, I missed a lot of the award-winning movies, including narrative Grand Jury Prize winner She Unfolds By Day and Documentary Jury Prize winner Beautiful Losers. And many of the films I liked the most were ones I didn't review, including Visioneers (which won the Dramatic Audience Award), a funny but surprisingly touching and serious dystopian fantasy with a great lead performance from Zach Galifianakis, and Last Cup, a rudimentary but very entertaining documentary about competitive beer-pong players. Here's a handy list of all my CineVegas coverage over on the Las Vegas Weekly website, if you'd like to feel like you were there too (eating bad food-court fast food will help enhance this feeling).

Reviews:
Women in Boxes
Your Name Here
Cocaine Cowboys II: Hustlin' With the Godmother
Happy Birthday, Harris Malden
South of Heaven
Dark Streets
Hank and Mike
Primo
Choke
The Wackness
The Great Buck Howard

Blog posts:
Thoughts on shorts
Film critics gone wild
Style vs. substance
Regulating expectations
Three cheers for local filmmaking
Further thoughts on shorts
Faux drive-in better in theory than in practice
Rosario Dawson puts on the charm

Friday, June 20, 2008

Movies opening this week

Get Smart (Steve Carell, Anne Hathaway, Dwayne Johnson, Alan Arkin, dir. Peter Segal)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I used to love watching reruns of Get Smart on Nick at Nite when I was a kid, and I like both Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway, so I had a certain guarded optimism about this movie. But Segal is an Adam Sandler house director with not much of a sense of satire, and the movie just tries so hard to be an action-comedy that it loses what made the original funny in the first place. Carell doesn't even bring much to the role, and really almost any charismatic actor with action experience could have pulled this part off. It's a waste of Carell's comedic talents, and of some great source material as well. Wide release

The Love Guru (Mike Myers, Jessica Alba, Romany Malco, Justin Timberlake, dir. Marco Schnabel)
This movie is getting absolutely pulverized in reviews, and it seems like people have been preparing for the chance to do so for months now. I, too, have been pre-hating Myers' new film since it was first announced, but I have to say it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. It was certainly not good, but it wasn't nearly as unbearable as the last Austin Powers movie, and at least it was 20 minutes shorter than Get Smart, and full of jokes. Mostly unfunny, repetitive jokes, sure, but I do have a shameful soft spot for terrible puns and labored meta-jokes, both of which are among Myers' favorite styles of humor. He also apparently loves dick jokes and juvenile bathroom humor, which dominate the movie. In fact, the entire thing is a ridiculously self-indulgent vanity project, filled with everything Myers likes: self-help platitudes, hockey, musical numbers, his annoying celebrity friends. Wayne's World is one of my favorite movies of all time, so it makes me sad to see Myers fall so far, but at the same time I have to admit that I laughed at this movie a few times, and found it too genial and lighthearted to hate with the vitriol that so many have been directing at it. Wide release

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Netflix irritates me for the first time ever

Okay, that's not entirely true; I've dealt with occasional lost or scratched discs, and when I first joined the service and there wasn't a shipping warehouse in Vegas, sometimes discs would take up to a week to arrive. But in general I've been very happy with Netflix for many years, until they announced today that they'd be doing away with their Profiles feature (here's the info at Hacking Netflix). According to the Netflix reps, this is a feature that very few people use and that apparently bogs down their system when they do upgrades, so obviously eliminating it will save them some money. But I sure hope it's a lot of money, since they are making some very vocal customers very angry (the commenters at Hacking Netflix are pissed).

I personally have two queues now, one for movies and one for TV shows. This is convenient for a very simple reason - when I send back a movie, I get another movie; when I send back a TV disc, I get the next disc in that series. Otherwise I would either end up with a bunch of TV series discs and no movies, or be stuck constantly juggling my queue to put the right thing at the top (which is what I will apparently have to do now). This is an incredibly useful feature that I have been very pleased with. Unlike some people, I don't think I'd consider downgrading or cancelling my subscription because of this decision, especially since other services like Blockbuster or GreenCine don't have the Profiles feature anyway. And a lot of things that people are complaining about don't apply to me: I don't have separate queues for family members or roommates, I don't have any ratings or reviews on my secondary queue that will be lost, and I haven't already hit the 500-title limit on my main queue, so I'll be able to add in all the stuff from the secondary one.

But this is still a huge pain, and Netflix seems to have handled the announcement horribly, offering vague promises of "improvements" in service but not saying what they may be, and not allowing users any convenience in transferring their movies either to their main queue or to a new account (they actually suggest printing out your queue, perhaps the most low-tech solution possible). Already many people suspect that this is a way to force people to pay for multiple accounts; even if that isn't the case, that's the impression that the company has created. For anyone who didn't use the Profiles service, its existence or nonexistence is irrelevant, but for the people who did it represents a huge inconvenience and, even worse, a sense that Netflix doesn't care about its customers. One of the company's main selling points versus Blockbuster has always been its customer-friendliness, and it loses big points in that area with this decision.

TV premiering tonight: Black Gold

I've never watched History's Ice Road Truckers or Discovery's Deadliest Catch, the very popular reality shows from producer Thom Beers, but they've clearly hit on some untapped market for stories about very manly men doing manly, primal things. Beers' latest, Black Gold, seems to follow the same formula, forgoing reality-show staples like contrived competitions, teary confessionals and staged situations to document the real-life perils of a tough-guy occupation (in this case, Texas oil drillers). I'm not quite sure I see the addictive appeal of a show like this, which to me seemed more like an educational program than a reality show. Sure, the two episodes I watched did spend a little time sketching out colorful characters on the three oil rigs that are the show's focus, and one episode featured that classic reality-TV staple, the drunken bar fight. But the nature of capturing such a volatile endeavor on tape means there isn't really any time to set up proper vantage points or properly cover each moment of drama, so the show is narrated nearly start to finish, explaining both the fundamentals of drilling and the relationships among the main participants.

You certainly learn more here than from your average reality show, but at the same time there isn't the emotional attachment to the participants that makes the show worth coming back to every week. When the narrator has to explain the same things over and over again (especially how much money everything costs, and how much they lose when things go wrong - the show is obsessed with dollar figures), the show loses its urgency and becomes just something teachers might use to pass the time on a rainy day in school. The producers do make an effort to establish some breakout personalities, but the people are generally too busy drilling oil to engage in too many TV-friendly hijinks. No one's all that lovable or hateable, either - it's not like there are any real-life Daniel Plainviews here drinking people's milkshakes; just hard-working regular guys trying to make a living. That may be admirable, but it's not great TV.

Learning about drilling is sort of interesting, but I don't think I need a weekly hourlong show for that. One special would be more than enough, and the drama here just isn't compelling enough to return week after week. Then again, there seems to be an underserved audience for this sort of thing, so maybe as a sheltered member of the creative class, I just don't get it. Tru TV, Wednesdays, 10 p.m.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

CineVegas

Since Friday, I've been spending nearly every waking hour at the CineVegas film festival, which runs through June 21. I and other Las Vegas Weekly contributors are posting reviews on the Weekly's CineVegas home page and entries at the Weekly CineVegas blog.

For more about the festival, check out my feature on its first year in 1998, or this Variety story on the 10th anniversary (in which I'm quoted a few times).

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Movies opening this week

The Happening (Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, Ashlyn Sanchez, dir. M. Night Shyamalan)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Even as I gave Lady in the Water a scathing review and placed all the blame for its failure at Shyamalan's feet, I have remained a supporter of the filmmaker's independence and stubborn insistence on sticking to his vision, success or not. And although this movie doesn't entirely redeem him, it does move him back into more familiar territory and play more to his strengths. And even when he fails, I still respect his ambitions and willingness to take risks, which is something that's always better than bland, safe pandering (I have a certain respect for Speed Racer and the Wachowskis for the same reason). Anyone making a personal, idiosyncratic statement with a giant studio movie is okay with me. So even though I can't quite recommend seeing this movie, I do hope Shyamalan continues to make more for many years to come. Wide release

The Incredible Hulk (Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth, William Hurt, dir. Louis Leterrier)
See, this is what you get when you go the opposite route. Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk film had plenty of problems, but it also had ambition and personality, and this do-over has neither. It plays it completely safe, focusing on action and straightforward storytelling over character development or distinctive visual style, and its primary purpose seems to be set the Hulk up for his appearance in the eventual Avengers movie, teased by Robert Downey Jr.'s cameo at the end as Tony Stark (easily the most exciting moment in the movie). Leterrier and writer Zak Penn (with alleged extensive rewrites by Norton himself) take a curious route, not following the events of Lee's movie but also not retelling the origin themselves, so that they recap events that we've never actually seen (an altered origin story) at the beginning, then cut to five years later as Bruce Banner is on the run from the government and trying not to turn into the Hulk. And then he pretty much just runs through the entire film. About halfway through I wondered when the story was going to start, and then I realized: This is the story. Banner runs, the government almost catches him, he gets away, he runs some more.

There's no emotional weight to it; the filmmakers cast a strong dramatic actor like Norton and then give him almost no drama to portray. Norton and Tyler have no chemistry, and Roth is a pretty tame villain. The action sequences are nothing special, and the climactic battle features one of my pet peeves about action movies: the special effects fighting each other. It all feels so rote and perfunctory, and with none of the wit and energy that marked Iron Man, which was just as conventional in its plotting. This may put the Hulk on track to fit into the Marvel action pantheon, and that's great, but once again I have to say that I prefer failed ambition to unexciting craftsmanship. Wide release

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

More hating

For anyone who might be interested in hearing my insightful commentary on new theatrical and DVD releases each week but can't tune in to X-107.5 at the appointed time (that's Fridays at 6 p.m. Pacific), there's now a Josh Bell Hates Everything blog over at the Las Vegas Weekly website, which will archive each week's broadcast (minus the new Josh Bell Knows Everything call-in trivia segment) for your listening pleasure. The last three weeks are up now, and new broadcasts will be added each week probably a day or two after they air. There may also be other podcasts created specifically for the Weekly up there in the future, but that's yet to be determined.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Movies opening this week

Kung Fu Panda (Voices of Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Ian McShane, Angelina Jolie, dir. Mark Osborne and John Stevenson)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Being almost entirely indifferent to this movie, I am surprised at the outpouring of positive and even glowing reviews for what to me seems like a mediocre, pleasant kids' movie that I will forget about until the sequel comes out three years from now. It does have that cool opening sequence, though, which only serves to highlight the way that CGI has made nearly all animated movies look the same. With tools at their disposal that can theoretically do anything, why aren't the makers of animated films more visually inventive? The computers keep getting us closer and closer to reality with greater and greater detail, but I'd love to see visuals that are more about artistry and less about realism (even in depicting anthropomorphic animals). Wide release

Son of Rambow (Bill Milner, Will Poulter, Jules Sitruk, dir. Garth Jennings)
Although the premise of this movie is winning (cute British kids in the 1980s make their own sequel to First Blood), the execution is inconsistent. When the movie focuses on the moviemaking process, and the sense of wonder and excitement the children bring to it, it's funny and entertaining and touching in the same way as Be Kind Rewind (perhaps even more so, because the characters' emotional investment in their movie seems more real). But the other aspects - the serious explorations of of religion and bullying and broken families, the annoying French kid who comes in and takes over the movie - never jell either with the central thread or with each other. The slapstick moments and the serious, even dark moments clash in a frustrating way, and the movie has less to say about the joys of creating art than I had hoped it would. The kids were charming enough, though, to make it something of a minor success. Opened limited May 2; in Las Vegas this week

You Don't Mess With the Zohan (Adam Sandler, Emmanuelle Chriqui, John Turturro, Rob Schneider, dir. Dennis Dugan)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I'm not sure why I end up seeing and reviewing so many Sandler movies; things just turn out that way when handing out assignments. But I've never liked Sandler, either in comedic roles or dramatic ones, and I realize I have a sort of bias against him. That said, I found this movie more entertaining than probably any other Sandler movie I have ever seen, which means that I chuckled at a few of the jokes and didn't cringe at the message. Yes, it has Rob Schneider in brownface, and it pretty much makes no sense, and the jokes are often idiotic, and Sandler's character is not particularly well-thought-out. But simply by not being the worst thing I've seen this year, it scores decent points with me. Wide release

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The Astonishing(ly protracted) finale


Joss Whedon and John Cassaday's Astonishing X-Men finally came to a close this week with Giant-Size Astonishing X-Men #1, more than four years after the series first began. While I have defended this book from its critics in the past, and this issue had a number of lovely moments, it ended up feeling like far less of an important story than it seemed at the beginning, and not everything in the oversized finale worked as well as it needed to in order to give the story the sense of grandeur it was clearly shooting for. To me, this is a relatively minor X-Men story with some cool but disposable alien villains, overinflated thanks to its length and Whedon and Cassaday's superstar status. There was plenty of filler in the 25-issue run, especially for a story that turned out to be fairly straightforward in the end. I imagine that read in one sitting it will hold up well, but will it be one of the greatest X-Men stories ever told? Certainly not.

This final issue does play to many of Whedon and Cassaday's strengths: The dialogue as always is crisp and clever, although the sexually charged interplay between Agent Brand and Beast is a little awkward. Whedon demonstrates a talent for writing old-school quippy Spider-Man that might get him asked to join the current Amazing Spider-Man creative team. And he clearly loves Kitty enough to give her a lovely semi-sendoff, in a moment that's truly emotional and heartbreaking even if the stakes never quite seem as dire and real as they should. My guess is that this book is a set-up for some crazy Whedon Kitty Pryde miniseries a few years down the road, and I hope Marvel holds off on doing anything with her and lets him get to that in his own time.

Cassaday also does amazing work as always, and any real scope or heft that the story has as an epic is thanks to his breathtaking art. Here he gets to draw a bunch of Marvel superheroes, and proves that he could totally kill a big crossover book if he ever wanted to. He really sells both the absurd (a giant bullet passes through the Earth!) and the intimate (the emotional moments feel real and not posed). However, as cool as it is to see Cassaday draw all those heroes, their presence feels like a forced delaying tactic to pad the story out, and they don't ultimately add anything by showing up this late in the series. Whedon resists making Reed Richards invent some silly deus ex machina, but then indulges in it at the same time by throwing it in in a dream sequence. It's just superfluous, no matter how great it looks.

As much I still have a fondness for the X-Men, I'm sort of glad this series is finally over, and I hope the next big comics project Whedon takes on will be an original creation that he can do more with than just trot out for nostalgia's sake (even if he does a pretty good job of that).

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Final Crisis #1

I've long since given up on DC's daunting and new reader-unfriendly continuity, and their barrage of interconnected miniseries that all seem essential to understanding the tapestry of their universe. One leads into the next, and I just don't have the interest or the knowledge to bother following them. But I do like Grant Morrison, at least some of the time (We3 is one of the best comics I've ever read, and I largely enjoyed his X-Men run), and I certainly like J.G. Jones, so I had been considering picking up the latest climax in DC's endless crossover cycle, Final Crisis (the title also indicates some finale to this perpetual cycle of event stories, but I don't really believe it). A big, self-contained, universe-spanning story from Morrison and Jones might be fun, although the last Morrison DC work I picked up, his Batman arc with J.H. Williams III, I found mostly impenetrable. And after reading advance buzz emphasizing continuity and underwhelmed-to-downright-hostile reviews, I decided to pass.

But, thanks to DC's publicity department, I got a copy of the first issue anyway, so it seemed like the least I could do was give it a shot. And I'd like to report that I was totally wrong, that Morrison brings his trademark cracked brilliance to bear on an exciting, epic tale of heroes and villains and et cetera and so on. Too bad that's completely not true - this was twice as impenetrable as the Batman arc that I read, and I think I'd have a hard time even telling someone what the series was about. Not solely because it was confusing, but just because it has no story to it, no focus. Basically, something bad is happening...probably. What? I don't know. Are the multiple Earths collapsing into one? Is the single universe becoming fractured again? I don't think so, but those are the sort of nutshell premises of past Crises (both of which I read and remember only vaguely), and so I imagine something similar might be happening here. The Monitors show up, but they've changed somehow. Something happened with the New Gods and Apokolips, which I think was in a miniseries I read about (but didn't actually read). There's some caveman character who might be existing in the past or some post-apocalyptic future. The Alpha Lanterns...appear in a panel. At least half the characters are never identified by name. The only plot thread I could really make sense of and that seemed to have the potential to drive a story involved a bunch of villains teaming up to take down the heroes, and killing Martian Manhunter. That took up three pages. I kept reading the last-page cliffhanger over and over to try to figure out what was going on, but I was completely lost.

I could go on, but the point is, this is not a story. It's a series of disjointed vignettes that may or may not add up to anything and require knowledge of dozens of other stories not just to appreciate on a deeper level, but to even understand in the most rudimentary way. Now, of course I could scour message boards and Wikipedia and find out who these people are and maybe make a little more sense of this issue. But why should I have to do that? Shouldn't I at least be able to follow the action and figure out why I might want to come back for the next installment? I realize that DC is catering to longtime fans, and that's okay. But I'm a longtime Marvel fan, and a book from Marvel structured like this would only be marginally more comprehensible or interesting to me, I think. Jones, as always, does excellent work, giving the story a sense of scope and representing a wide range of characters in exciting and striking ways. But ultimately this is a series about a sweeping, important story, and if I can't even discern what that is, then why would I bother reading the rest of it? (I will say that there is the remote possibility that this will all come together in future issues, and if DC sends me the eventual trade I will give it a chance. But this is no way to hook readers on something being presented in a serial format.)

Friday, May 30, 2008

Movies opening this week

The Fall (Lee Pace, Catinca Untaru, Justine Waddell, dir. Tarsem)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I really wanted to like this movie, and I'm actually one of the few people who liked The Cell, but I just couldn't bring myself to invest in it as a story or even a sensory experience. It is, of course, very pretty, in a different way from The Cell, and that does count for something. I was disappointed that I had to watch it on a DVD rather than see it on a big screen, and the theater experience might have improved my opinion of it. Still, the movie's a letdown, especially since it'll probably be another eight years or more before Tarsem gets a chance to make another. Opened limited May 9; in Las Vegas this week

Sex and the City (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis, dir. Michael Patrick King)
First let me say that I have seen exactly one episode of the TV show (which I liked), so my opinion may not carry as much weight as a fan's. But other than the rush of nostalgia, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this movie to exist, as it artificially breaks up everything that appears to have been nicely wrapped up at the end of the series, only to spend two and a half hours pretty much just putting it back together again. There isn't a story here that calls for a movie to be made, nor is there anything said about the new phase of life that these women find themselves in now that they are no longer single or particularly young. The structure is slack and episodic, and drags on interminably through pointless subplots (Jennifer Hudson's character ought to have been excised entirely) and blatant delaying tactics. There are some admittedly funny moments, but they're not nearly frequent enough or funny enough to make it worth slogging through the labored plot developments. At half the length, this might have been an acceptable bit of fluffy entertainment, but in its bloated form the only thing it's good for is giving warm feelings of recognition to people who just aren't willing to let go of their favorite TV show. Wide release

The Strangers (Liv Tyler, Scott Speedman, dir. Bryan Bertino)
I'm disappointed to see all the negative reviews for this movie, especially since a lot of them seem to come from the same preconceived notions that I myself had going in. I didn't expect much from a horror movie that's been delayed for months and is being sacrificed at the box office against a whole bunch of giant blockbusters. But as I watched it, I had to admit that I was completely wrong, and that this is a very effective and scary film. It still has its flaws - Tyler and Speedman aren't quite the acting powerhouses that could transform what is basically a two-character piece into something really moving and powerful, and while they always convey fear and dread well, their performances are a little one-note. Bertino builds tension and suspense very strongly, and for about half the movie, there's a sheer terror to the way the faceless villains slowly and implacably menace the emotionally raw protagonists. The tension reaches a peak and then doesn't actually go anywhere, and the ending provides a disappointing (if admirably grim) resolution. Even with such problems, this is a movie that grabs on and doesn't let go, and never uses needless gore or cheap scare tactics. If it's not a flawless horror movie, it's certainly a lot better than anyone would have expected it to be, and than most critics are giving it credit for. Wide release

Friday, May 23, 2008

Movies opening this week

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, dir. Steven Spielberg)
Unlike my colleague Matt Hunter, I'm not a lifelong Indiana Jones fan; before a few weeks ago, when I watched them again to refresh my memory, I hadn't seen the original movies in nearly 20 years. I liked those movies fine as a kid, and I like them fine now, but they never seemed like more than clever, harmless fun to me, and this new installment fits in well enough. There are plenty of flaws here to pick at - Matt notes some of them in his review, and the turn into sci-fi territory bothered me more than it did him - but while I was watching the movie I was generally entertained. This fits right in with the summer of adequacy we seem to be having when it comes to blockbusters - like Iron Man and Prince Caspian, this movie does what you expect it to do with competence and relative skill, but isn't something to be revisiting over and over again (although clearly plenty of fans disagree with that assessment of the earlier Indy films, so I could be wrong). Wide release

My Brother Is an Only Child (Elio Germano, Riccardo Scamarcio, Diane Fleri, dir. Daniele Luchetti)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I refer you to my comments on The Year My Parents Went on Vacation, which opened here a few weeks ago: "This is one of those innocuous, perfectly pleasant foreign movies that in a year I will entirely forget I even saw. Still, it has some good acting from the lead kids, and a nice look to it, and I can't really think of anything bad to say about it." My Brother doesn't have kids as its lead actors, but otherwise everything else applies. I suppose I shouldn't be blithely dismissing movies from very different foreign cultures like this, but the truth is they made the same exact lack of impression on me. Opened limited March 28; in Las Vegas this week

Then She Found Me (Helen Hunt, Bette Midler, Colin Firth, Matthew Broderick, dir. Helen Hunt)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I hate Helen Hunt with a probably irrational passion, so I was nicely surprised just that this movie wasn't completely horrible, since she's the star, director, co-writer and co-producer. Hunt is still a terrible actress and entirely unsympathetic, but Midler has way more fun here than one ought to in a dour, good-for-you movie like this, and at times she nearly saves the movie. Not enough to make it worth seeing, mind you. Opened limited April 25; in Las Vegas this week

Friday, May 16, 2008

Movies opening this week

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Ben Barnes, dir. Andrew Adamson)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I read this book years ago when I was a kid and brushed up last week by listening to the audiobook. It was amazing to me how tedious and boring the book seems now, and how C.S. Lewis really belabors the religious allegory far more than in the first book. So even though I didn't think this movie was spectacular, it does improve greatly on the book and give me hope that future Narnia adventures might be worth all the hype and expense. Wide release

The Life Before Her Eyes (Uma Thurman, Evan Rachel Wood, Eva Amurri, dir. Vadim Perelman)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
There have been some inordinately harsh reviews for this movie, talking about it as the worst film of the year, and I think that's overreacting a bit. But it is a melodramatic, overwrought cheat, and I say that as someone who liked the overwrought melodrama of Perelman's last film, House of Sand and Fog. That movie at least was emotionally affecting; this one is just irritating. Opened limited April 18; in Las Vegas this week

Friday, May 09, 2008

Movies opening this week

Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci, John Goodman, Susan Sarandon, dir. Larry and Andy Wachowski)
Despite the fact that the plot is pointlessly convoluted (and hinges on big corporations illegally inflating their stock prices - exciting!) and the alleged emotional moments are cheesy and false, I'd almost recommend seeing this movie just for its visual mastery. The Wachowskis didn't only shoot this primarily on green screens (like 300 and Sin City), but they also took complete advantage of the freedom of having almost no physical sets to construct scenes in an impressionistic, abstract way, with characters sometimes floating undefined in the physical space, scenes interposed with one another, cameras moving where they couldn't possibly go, and transitions using wipes that follow characters across the screen. It's really a monumental achievement in a visual sense, while at the same time being a complete sensory overload that gets repetitive and tiresome rather quickly (and runs on for over two hours). If the Wachowskis could better balance their visual inventiveness with an actually decent story and worthwhile characters (as in the original Matrix and their excellent first film, Bound), they could certainly make another film as revolutionary as what they've done before. Wide release

What Happens in Vegas (Cameron Diaz, Ashton Kutcher, Lake Bell, Rob Corddry, dir. Tom Vaughan)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
At least this isn't really being marketed as some definitive Vegas movie, the way 21 was. Really very little of it takes place in Vegas anyway, and otherwise it's just a generic rom-com not worth much attention. It could have been worse, sure, but it's in no way good, and more notable for the way it uses an ad slogan as a title than for anything about its actual content. Wide release

Young @ Heart (documentary, dir. Stephen Walker)
All of the positive reviews for this movie talk about how uplifting it is, but I just found it depressing. I mean, sure, it's great that these people have such a zest for life in their 70s, 80s and even 90s that they are out there singing rock songs (generally poorly, I might add) in a chorus and going on concert tours. But there is a constant sense - from the filmmaker, from the chorus director, and especially from the audience members shown - of indulgent condescension that just makes me despondent about the prospect of growing old. Okay, so maybe these people sing in a chorus, but that seems like all they do. So there it is: You sing some songs, people think it's cute, then you die (two of the chorus members die over the course of the film). It didn't make me feel good, although I admit that there are plenty of entertaining and affecting moments throughout the film. As a movie, it's way too long and seriously padded, and Walker inserts himself unnecessarily into the story, with so much superfluous narration that sometimes you wonder if someone accidentally turned on the DVD commentary. But I don't mean to condemn the film - it tells a perfectly nice story, flaws aside, and people less pessimistic than I am will probably find it very inspiring. Opened limited April 9; in Las Vegas this week

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Post-strike TV round-up, part two

30 Rock (NBC, Thursdays, 9:30 p.m.)
Tonight is already the finale for this show, which after a sort of shaky post-strike premiere is right up at the heights of the beginning of the current second season. I still think the show was a bit funnier in the first season when the jokes came a little faster, but the increased focus on longer storylines and character development has paid off well, and the jokes are as funny as ever, just not as frequent. It's at the point where there are lots of minor characters who can pop up now and then and score laughs, adding something to their personalities and backstories each time. And the way that Tina Fey has developed Liz Lemon into such a pathetic and yet intensely sympathetic character continues to be extremely impressive. I think that more than any other show I watch this is the one I wish would have had the chance to produce a full season this year. At least it's already been renewed for next year.

Brothers & Sisters (ABC, Sundays, 10 p.m.)
This show also signs off this week, and I'm a little ambivalent about the direction it's taken since coming back from the strike. The storyline about Rebecca discovering she's not actually related to the Walkers seems to me extremely ill-advised, as it negates the reason for the character to be on the show in the first place, and just reeks of soapy desperation. B&S has always had plenty of soap-opera elements, but it's generally been more serious and realistic up until this point. I love nighttime soaps, but turning this show into one does not fit with what's come before. It also seems like the creators are writing themselves into a corner, and I wonder if they are trying to get rid of the Rebecca character. The same goes for Ron Rifkin's Saul, who's never had much to do, and now has reached the culmination of his only storyline as he comes out of the closet. Exploring the issues facing a newly outed gay man in his 60s is something no show has done, but I get the feeling that this development is just an excuse to show the character the door, with all his talk of wanting to move on and live his life in peace (i.e., somewhere else). The other storylines have been fine if not spectacular, but I think the struggle with the soapier elements is really what will define the show as it goes forward, and I hope it manages to stick to at least a little bit of emotional realism.

Gossip Girl (The CW, Mondays, 8 p.m.)
And on the other hand here is a show that is extremely soapy and only gets better the soapier it gets. The arrival of the evil Georgina has been very entertaining, and this week's over-the-top revelation from Serena was entirely ridiculous yet completely intriguing. This show has become something of a cultural phenomenon in the way that Josh Schwartz's last teen drama, The O.C., was in its first year as well, and I hope it doesn't go downhill quickly like that show did. The giddy celebration of wealth and bitchiness is hugely entertaining, and the whole cast is strong, pulling off the lurid twists and catty dialogue with great success. I think I've mentioned before how great Leighton Meester is as queen bitch Blair, but Taylor Momsen has also been doing great work as her chief rival, handling the writers' decision to evolve her character into an entitled spoiled brat with uncommon grace. That storyline, which might have bugged me a bit, works thanks to Momsen. I'm still not sold on Michelle Trachtenberg as Georgina; she just doesn't seem menacing enough. But otherwise this show is stellar entertainment that clearly taps into a certain type of youth culture in a very resonant way. It's another new show I'm happy has already been picked up for next season.

Lost (ABC, Thursdays, 10 p.m.)
As has been noted everywhere, this show has been pretty much awesome this season, completely reinvigorated thanks to the announcement of an end date that the creators are able to work toward. And post-strike it's been just as good, with revelations coming in almost every episode, intriguing cliffhangers and even worthwhile character development (although last week did feature a return to the unfortunate focus on Jack whining). Sure, there are occasional dead spots, but the use of the flash-forwards has solved one of the main problems of the last two seasons, which was the redundant and unnecessary flashbacks, and the occasional flashbacks that do occur are much more informative. The mythology may not completely cohere when everything is revealed, but every new development that's come along recently is exciting, and they seem to be fitting the pieces together much better than I would have expected a year ago.

Friday, May 02, 2008

Movies opening this week

Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, dir. Jon Favreau)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
The hype on this movie has been overwhelming, but that hasn't really bothered me (it helps that I have a cool free Iron Man action figure sitting on my desk right now), and the movie looks set to make a ton of money this weekend, which is also fine with me. Not that I loved it, but it's a well-crafted piece of blockbuster entertainment, exactly the sort of thing you hope for from summer movie season. Given the inevitable avalanche of crap that we are going to be subjected to in the coming months, this is at least a pleasant way to start. Wide release

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation (Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut, Daniela Piepszyk, dir. Cao Hamburger)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
This is one of those innocuous, perfectly pleasant foreign movies that in a year I will entirely forget I even saw. Still, it has some good acting from the lead kids, and a nice look to it, and I can't really think of anything bad to say about it. Opened limited Feb. 15; in Las Vegas this week

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Suburban Glamour

Jamie McKelvie's four-issue Image mini-series is so beautiful and so well-designed that it's easy to forgive its sort of half-amusing Neil Gaiman pastiche of a story. I never read Phonogram, the Image series that brought McKelvie to people's attention, but I remember looking at preview pages online and marveling at the clean and simple yet utterly striking artwork, although the story seemed a little annoying and hipper-than-thou for me. But one look at the cover for this series, which McKelvie both wrote and drew (Phonogram was written by Kieron Gillen), I knew I had to check it out. The art (colored brightly and boldly by Guy Major and Matthew Wilson) indeed lived up to expectations. In contrast to a lot of indie-comics art, it's not sketchy or muddy or ethereal; rather, it's full of thick lines and well-defined spaces, and it captures a certain youth-culture aesthetic that works well with McKelvie's story of an angsty teen who finds out that she's very, very different from her peers.

The teen drama is nothing new; nor, really, is the story of the supposedly human girl suddenly finding out that she's the chosen one in an ancient battle between warring factions of magical creatures. McKelvie carries it all with low-key charm and humor, and wraps things up nicely by having the main character choose to remain an alterna-teen rather than become princess of some fairy kingdom. He promises more stories to come in the last issue's postscript, and now that the setup is out of the way, they could end up being a lot more original and intriguing than this outing. Either way, though, I'll definitely be there for the art. The Suburban Glamour TPB collection will be in stores May 7.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Movies opening this week

Baby Mama (Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Greg Kinnear, Dax Shepard, dir. Michael McCullers)
I love Fey's work on 30 Rock and I liked Mean Girls, so I would have loved to see her write and star in a clever mainstream comedy that showcased her talents. But instead there's this, a hit-and-miss comedy written and directed by another SNL veteran. It has its funny moments, but overall is very tame and weak, and entirely forgettable. What really bugged me more than the mediocre jokes, though, was the way that the movie completely chickened out on its premise. (Spoilers follow.) McCullers had a chance to actually make a movie that addressed a relatively new phenomenon (surrogate motherhood) that's becoming more and more popular, and say something interesting about it. Instead the movie is a total cop-out; Poehler's character doesn't get impregnated with Fey's baby, but pretends that she did. Then she actually does getspregnant - by her boyfriend. And the movie ends with Fey getting pregnant the old-fashioned way despite the allegedly huge odds against her. So a movie potentially about an entirely cutting-edge and modern way of forming a family instead ends up reinforcing the most traditional values of all. Plus, it's not even very funny. What a wasted opportunity. Wide release

Deal (Bret Harrison, Burt Reynolds, Shannon Elizabeth, dir. Gil Cates Jr.)
This is one of those movies that is inexplicably released to theaters when there is no reason it shouldn't have gone straight to DVD. It currently has the dubious honor of a zero percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and that's entirely deserved. It's been dumped in only a handful of theaters, but that includes several locations in Vegas thanks to the gambling connection and the fact that much of it is set here (although it was filmed elsewhere, and the establishing shots are all obvious stock footage). Reynolds totally snoozes through his performance, Harrison is an unappealing lead, there is no drama or suspense to speak of, the poker play is deadly boring, and Elizabeth's subplot is a bizarre dead end that completely unjustifiably creates a rift between the main characters. It makes 21 look like total genius in comparison. Limited release

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (John Cho, Kal Penn, Rob Corddry, Neil Patrick Harris, dir. Jon Hurwitz & Hayden Schlossberg)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Okay, so this movie is kind of dumb and certainly very vulgar, but I have an affection for stoner comedies like this (even though I don't, uh, share the characters' hobby), and I liked this almost as much as Harold and Kumar's first adventure. And even if its social commentary is sloppy and broad, it's still there. Any movie that can take on the war on terror while also making lots of pot jokes and showcasing a bunch of hot girls at a "bottomless party" is okay with me. Wide release

The Rape of Europa (documentary, dir. Richard Berge, Bonni Cohen and Nicole Newnham)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
This well-meaning but entirely dull movie probably doesn't need a theatrical release, and will be much more at home on PBS or the History Channel. I do wonder who even pays $10 to see this on a big screen - and I am an advocate of seeing almost anything on the big screen if possible. There were a few times during this movie when the filmmakers touched the surface of something that seemed really interesting and then just moved on; there are at least five or six threads that could have been their own documentaries, any of which would probably have had more life and personality than this informative but cursory overview. Opened limited Sept. 14; in Las Vegas this week

Snow Angels (Kate Beckinsale, Sam Rockwell, Michael Angarano, Olivia Thirlby, dir. David Gordon Green)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I haven't seen any of Green's other, highly acclaimed films, but I was looking forward to this one based on positive reviews and his general reputation as an excellent director of indie dramas. But the longer this film went on, the less I liked it. I actually have an affinity for bleak, depressing dramas, but this doesn't establish convincing characters or environments, and its desaturated seriousness only makes all the melodrama that much more laughable. For the first half or so I thought it was an unremarkable but passable small-scale drama, but (spoiler alert yet again!) once the four-year-old drowned and everyone spent all their time wailing about it, I just about gave up. And that was before the Jesus-inspired murder-suicide. I mean, really. Opened limited March 7; in Las Vegas this week