Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Review. Show all posts
Sunday, October 4, 2009
SAT Time! Night of the Living Dead:Shaun of the Dead::28 Days Later:___________
There are quite a few rules to survival in Zombieland or so we're told by Jesse Eisenberg's Columbus a neurotic survivor of the zombie apocalypse. Rule number one: cardio, rule number 3: seatbelts and so on, it's clear that Columbus has thought a lot about how to survive in a world dominated by the walking dead. And, I imagine most of the audience for Zombieland will have as well considering how popular and prominent zombie horror movies have become in the forty-one years since George Romero created the modern take on the monster with Night of the Living Dead.Romero's zombie is a slow, shambling reanimated corpse, the Romero style zombie was lampooned in 2004's zombie romantic comedy Shaun of the Dead. Romero has publicly stated that he doesn't like the idea of quick running zombies, but with the box office hit 28 Days Later audiences proved that they don't agree. And so we have Zombieland a horror movie that openly lampoons it's own subject matter. But the big question is, does it succeed?
Zombieland follows several survivors after the world is decimated by an outbreak of zombie. Columbus(Jesse Eisenberg) is on his way to his parents house in Columbus, Ohio when he meets Tallahassee(Woody Harrelson). Tallahassee insists that the two don't use real names so that they don't get too attached to one another. Along the way the duo meet with Wichita(Emma Stone) and Little Rock(Abigail Breslin), sisters on their way to Los Angeles to visit an amusement park they once went to before the world went to hell.
The cast is small, but the performances are not. Harrelson in particular wows as the gruff Tallahassee who takes glee in killing every zombie he sees and yearns for a twinkie. Tallahassee at first seems like a one note joke, and honestly he's the funniest character in the picture, but his character has the strongest emotional arc of the film. It's this arc that elevates Zombieland from being a somewhat forgettable comedy to something stronger. Harrelson may be the crown jewel of this picture, but the other cast members don't slack. It's kinda weird to see Abigail Breslin in a zombie movie since the predominate vision in my head of her is as the little girl in Signs, she does a fine job here and when she and Harrelson share the screen it's a joy to see.
If there is a defining fault to Zombieland it would be it's lack of zombies! For a movie that insists that the world is dead and filled with the walking dead, I could literally count on two hands the number of zombies the group encounter between Texas and Los Angeles. I'm not sure if the director was saving money for the big finale or what, but it's a glaring oversight. When the group casually drives into the center of Los Angeles without seeing a single zombie--it's a problem. With a population between the city and the surrounding areas in excess of 17 million I expect to see more than six zombies in downtown L.A. When there ARE zombies in the movie it does work as a horror movie, with quite a few scares, some of them are generic jump scares, but overall the movie doesn't slight on the horror aspect.
One of the greatest aspects of this film is the narration coupled with the "survival rules." Columbus narrates the film and his survival rules accompany the narration on the screen as the happen. It's a beautiful twist that looks wonderful and results in quite a few laughs. It's like we're viewing a movie version of Max Brooks "Zombie Survival Handbook." These parts coupled with the tremendous opening title sequence make this film a visual joy to watch
Whether or not you enjoy Zombieland largely depends on how you like your comedy. Zombieland is an American comedy through and through. There is less subtlety to the humor and it plays less like an homage to it's source material than Shaun did. That's not a slight against the film, but if you liked Shaun and are expecting more of the same you'll be disappointed. The funniest portion of the movie comes during the last third of the film when the group looks for suitable lodging in L.A. I'm loathe to reveal much about it, but it's the highlight of the film and you'll recognize it when you see it.
Maybe I'm not the most partial person to review a zombie movie, I've grown up watching the Living Dead films, one of my favorite video games is Left 4 Dead, hell, my parent's first date was to see Dawn of the Dead, I can basically credit my existence to the the genre. I tell you this as full disclosure, I'm a big zombie whore. I'll pretty much watch anything with zombies in them. But I don't enjoy everything with zombies in it, the Resident Evil films have zombies in them and they are still steaming piles of shit. So, trust me when I say that Zombieland is a great film certainly worth a look during this spooky month.
Its funny, it's scary and really what else is there to look forward to in the genre this month? Saw 6? Now, THAT is funny!
Read more...
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Two Thumbs Way...
Did the pun almost kill you too? Given Pixar's stellar record on films not relating to living race cars, I didn't have too many doubts that this movie would be six kinds of awesomeness. And even if I am saying this about a movie involving a house flying via the awesome power of balloons and tablecloths, it's such a mature piece (from an emotional standpoint at least) to significantly defy the idea of being a movie for kids. Click below for the full review and another stop on our summer movie ride.When I talk about the maturity of this film, a great deal of that stems from the fact that despite the youthful "recognize life as an adventure and keep on living it" message, the main driving point of the movie revolves around a death. Even if they've repeatedly been praised for making movies for both adults and children, all of their films carry the same Capra-esque vibe. Woody and Buzz will always be reunited with Andy. The bugs will always defeat the grasshoppers. Monsters will power their city with children's laughter. The Incredibles will always end up as the Pixar equivalent of the Fantastic Four. And nothing utterly devastating will ever happen to anybody... unless you still haven't gotten over the fact that Buzz Lightyear can't fly.
But rather than just making a cute movie about a grumpy old man and a cute, silly kid, the first significant 10-15 minutes of the movie is working a character deeply into our hearts and killing her off. I don't think I've seen a handful of movie characters I loved as much so instantly as Ellie. Off the top of my head, the list is limited to Crash Davis, Rick Blaine, Sabrina Fairchild, Red from Shawshank and any member of the Magnificent Seven. Seeing her life with Carl absolutely makes the movie something more important. If we just started out with grumpy Ed Asner, we'd have to slowly uncover his history and it still wouldn't fully resonate. But this opening, scored absolutely perfectly by Michael Giacchino, has let me empathize completely with Carl's character. Ellie was that bright shining center to EVERYthing and now it's gone. Maybe this is because I'm a 60-year-old curmudgeon stuffed into a 28-year-old body, but I was actually in a sour mood for the next twenty or so minutes right along with Carl. And while I'm not the biggest fan of going to movies to feel shitty about life (if I was, I would probably watch Aronofsky films more often), it's impressive to get so sucked into a character's attitude.
The majority of the rest of the film is standard issue Pixar. It's at time funny for the kids (though substantively less often than previously) and there is of course a message worn proudly on it's sleeve. A clear bad-guy and dogs being silly and all the parts of the movie that kids will love and I'll surely enjoy on repeat viewings. In particular everything involving Dug and Alpha's voice box is pure gold. All that is fine and I'm proudly on the bandwagon proclaiming The Incredibles , WALL-E and the like as some of the very best and most under-appreciated films every year. But those first 15 minutes absolutely make the movie for me. I absolutely didn't cry (Field of Dreams remains the lone film that can utterly devastate and enthrall me consistently), but it got dusty.
I don't want to be too harsh on the bulk of the movie. By the end, like Carl, even I began to appreciate the idea that while we're alive there are still adventures to be had and sometimes you have to let go of the past to a degree. Even as I'm writing this two days later I feel bad leaving Ellie behind. Given how little dialogue she has it, like much of the emotional resonance throughout the movie, her impact is sold through Asner's evocative performance, the animator's ability to really break ground in displaying emotion on humans and Giacchino's score which honestly might be the best I've heard in four or five years.
Despite all this, I'm probably selling short the journey of young Russell. He could have just been the cute kid along for the ride to give the younger audience someone to relate to. But his relationship with an absent father, while at times involving and something I can personally relate to, never hits home in the same manner. His mom died, but he has a step-mom. His dad is away all the time, but he has Carl. But nothing will ever replace Ellie for Carl because nothing can replace the entirety of his life. Sometimes moving on has to be enough.
Final score: A
Read more...
Sunday, May 24, 2009
No Fate
The Terminator has always been a compelling series for me. I'll admit that I didn't see the first film until after I'd seen Terminator 2: Judgment Day but the ideas, the concepts and drama that drive this series were extremely exciting from the moment I'd first seen the trailers for T2. Even my parents were excited by the trailers. People who to this day probably can't name a single film as their "favorite." But here they were hyped for a film about killer robots from the future and consequently I became excited as well.It's a pretty common joke around That's a Wrap! that I will like anything with killer robots in it and while that is a little broad of a generalization--I do adore stories about robots...oh and time travel too.
I had quite the love/hate affair with Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles(which I'm sad to say was canceled way before its time) and it's willy-nilly timeline and age changes(not to mention the blatant canon broken in the first episode with the T-800 head going through the time portal) before I gave in and enjoyed the series for what it was, warts and all.
The Terminator franchise for me has always been sort of like a horror story. Honestly the first movie is the only one that can really even be likened to a horror film, but the basic story is somewhat endemic to horror movies: Evil thing hunts an innocent and cannot be stopped. Without all the sci-fi trappings that plot description could fit any number of horror movies. The Terminator could be a proxy for The Mummy. They share the same basic conceit Not to mention the Terminator Endoskeleton--fucking frightening.
Now, of course, the Terminator films have always been about action(T2 and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines more so than The Terminator but the idea of an unstoppable metallic horror from the future hunting someone is just a frightening proposition. One of the things that worried me about Terminator Salvation was that it was set in the future.
Yes, it's set in the time period that we've all wanted to see since the first time we viewed The Terminator and saw those tantalizing glimpses of the future war. But can Terminator stay frightening if it's about a war with hundreds of thousands of endoskeletons? Thankfully, the answer is yes--at least when it needs to be.
Everyone worried when McG was announced as the director of this film. Truth be told, I've never seen one of his films. I know that his take on Charlie's Angels was well received if not well reviewed and I knew that he was an action focused director. I tried to give the man the benefit of the doubt and I'm glad I did, because aside from a very few nitpicks Terminator Salvation is a very fun and exciting summer movie.
It is the year 2019(a good ten years before John Connor "smashed SkyNet's defense grid," won the war and sent his father back in time) and things aren't looking good for the human race. SkyNet is ramping up to something big--the T-800, and the human resistance(not yet lead by John Connor) is looking to find a way to end the war for good.
Marcus Wright(Sam Worthington) a death row inmate from 2003 wakes up in the aftermath of a Connor-led infiltration of a SkyNet facility. Though nearly fifteen years have passed since his "death." The big question is, who is Marcus and is he what he seems to be?
The big difference between the past Terminator films and this movie is that this isn't a road/chase picture. The past Terminator movies have all had the main characters running from a terminator until the inevitable showdown at the end. Salvation shirks this format and is truly a different film. Look, I'll admit it doesn't have the heart or mind of The Terminator or T2, but what it does have is a competent story with some great set-pieces that never overstay their welcome.
The main problem with this film is that McG splits the time between Marcus and Connor. We never really get to spend enough time with either of them and the film never seems to know who the main character is. Is it John Connor(Christian Bale), the most important person in the Terminator franchise or Marcus Wright, the random dude we've never heard of before and truth be told--is kind of a dick. Because we split our time between the two stories there are things that get left by the wayside such as the relationship between Kate Connor(Bryce Dallas Howard) and John. Ideally this should be the emotional core of the film but it never really goes anywhere.
In addition to this, some of the acting is shoddy at best. Christian Bale...well, he's Christian Bale. This guy could read the phone book and make it at least worth paying attention. Howard is serviceable in what is sadly a marginal role. Worthington as Marcus is downright awful. The guy can't say a line without waffling between his American and native Australian accents. Worthington's character is also a total ass making me want to follow Connor again whenever he's on the screen. Thankfully most of Marcus's screen time is shared with Anton Yelchin's Kyle Reese. Now, I had major issues with Yelchin in Star Trek but here he's an absolute joy(aside from his attempt to replicate Michael Biehn's voice) to watch.
The special effects are fairly well done, though there are a few places where they look incomplete or just lame(wait till you see Marcus hanging out at the Hollywood sign). Though the Hunter/Killer effects look nice enough, they don't have the same impact as the model work from the earlier films. Computer graphics are an incredible tool for filmmakers but they seem to have become a crutch in recent years. Model work doesn't always look convincing but combined with convincing CG it can look amazing. More directors should look to Peter Jackson's work in The Lord of the Rings for an idea of how to make models and CG work together. McG does have some excellent traditional effects peppered throughout with some of the T-600 endoskeletons and again, most of the CG looks impressive enough(the giant terminator Harvester immediately comes to mind).
Where this movie bests T3 is in the humor department. One of the only complaints I really had with T3 was the pathetic attempts at humor. Salvation(written by the same people who wrote T3) thankfully does not have this problem. There are humorous portions written into the script, but they are mostly understated and will probably only be noticed by Terminator die-hards. The requisite "I'll be back" moment is probably handled the best since the original film and doesn't come off as cheesy like it did in T3.
And finally, the terminators are still scary. The first time we meet a T-600 endoskeleton it is gripping and frightening. There are moments later that continue this tension. I am glad that McG was able to keep these moments scary while still portraying the future war with the machines.
All in all Terminator Salvation is a worthy addition to the Terminator franchise. Though not nearly as gripping as the first two films it is a compelling action movie and the first summer movie that I've genuinely loved. You can't and shouldn't compare it to the first two Terminator films. If you can do that then you will probably love this flawed but fun film.
Plus it's got killer robots IN the future. Can't go wrong there!
3.5 Polymemetic alloys out of 5!
Read more...
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Back to the Future's Past or Something...
I've been a fan of science fiction for as long as I can remember. Although my tendencies always leaned more towards the Star Wars side of the equation, it's hard to say that I'm a Johnny-come-lately Star Trek fan when I've been watching some form of the series since I was ten. I don't consider myself a trekkie, but somehow through the course of my life I've picked up a considerable amount of trek-trivia and...well, I did MARRY a trekkie (seriously, once as a complete slip of the tongue I referred to Data as Da-tuh instead of Day-tuh and got reamed out pretty hard for it).So, while I'm too young to have seen the original crew in their glory days, I have seen a good portion of The Original Series and I've seen damned near all of the Next Generation-era Trek as well as all of the movies.
Star Trek: Nemesis may have sucked, but I still liked it. So, yeah, I was apprehensive about director JJ Abrams' plan to return to the unseen early days of Spock and Kirk. I mean, I like the Next Gen universe and isn't Star Trek supposed to be about looking forward? Didn't everyone bitch about this very thing happening in Enterprise? Yes, yes they did. With all that being said, I am a JJ Abrams whore. Joss Whedon may be Jim's master, but I will forever be loyal to Abrams. I don't care for Fringe and he wrote the screenplay for Armageddon...so maybe I should rethink my adulation for the man.
So, was my dislike of continuity futzing overcome by my (sometimes misguided) love of JJ Abrams? Find out after the jump.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Yes, but...
If anyone had actually listened to our summer movie preview podcast, they would have heard me bitch about several things done in this movie, one of the chief concerns I had was the casting. Notably, Karl Urban as Doctor "Bones" McCoy. Everything I saw coming out in the previews did nothing to assuage my fears, and although I LIKED the castmembers in other things, I didn't like who they were cast as. Thankfully, I was dead wrong about the cast on most accounts.
First of all, Karl Urban as Bones was the goddamn highlight of this film. I can't believe that I was ever against this casting. Where other cast members don't really try to catch the body language and ticks of the people they are emulating, you can tell that Urban did his homework. Simply put, Bones works. Chris Pine's James Kirk isn't as close an homage as Urban's work, but every once in a while he'll say something or give a look that just screams "JAMES TIBERIUS KIRK!" Pine has an easier job thanks to Urban. Since Urban won me over so quickly I was more apt to accept Pine as Kirk merely by his association with Bones.
Zachary Quinto as Spock on the other hand didn't do much for me. Sure, it's a huge step up from the horse-shit he is involved with on Heroes, but he never really captured Spock for me. Maybe it's because I've seen him on my television for the last three years but I couldn't really disassociate Quinto from Sylar. That's my fault, but I really do wish the producers had picked someone a little less known. In the end Quinto is serviceable but nothing to write home about especially since we get to see the real Spock himself, Leonard Nimoy, later in the film.
The rest of the cast is a mixed bag of jewels and turds. Bruce Greenwood's Captain Pike made me giddy for the second Captain of the Enterprise like I've never been before but Anton Yelchin's Checkov made me wish the producers kept to continuity and didn't introduce the character until later. Yelchin's faux Russian accent is so ridiculous that it borders on racist. I know, I know, Walter Koening's accent wasn't all that accurate to begin with, but at least I could UNDERSTAND HIM. Simon Pegg is Simon Pegg, I find it hard to hate him in anything but his Scotty as written and performed is like a manic child. It's so over-the-top that I couldn't stand the character at all.
Finally Zoe Saldana's Lt. Uhura is a marginal non-entity. Saldana has not impressed me in anything I've seen her in. She was so horrible in Pirates of the Carribean that she was THE ONLY THING TO NOT RETURN in those misguided sequels. Here she does her best to just look sexy and that's about it. She's got a half-assed love story with Spock which just comes out of fucking nowhere. As my wife pointed out, it's probably only there because someone thought there HAD to be a love story in a summer blockbuster.
For his part in this all, JJ Abrams does an admirable job. Star Trek is an exciting and kinetic movie full of color and motion. I'll admit that I liked some of the new additions to the Trek science like the awesome new "warp jump" animation and sound effect. It looks pretty spectacular and sounds even better. Contrary to how I feel while watching most Hollywood pictures (and perhaps this is just because I saw X-Men Origins Wolverine last weekend), I found almost all of the special effects and CGI work to be impeccable. There's a sequence later in the movie that involves a monster-alien thing that looks less impressive, but otherwise Abrams has overseen an incredible looking film. The retro-future look of all the technology is fairly cool if not terribly accurate to Trek-lore.
So, yeah, it's a pretty movie with some great performances and you'll probably have a good time with it IF you:
A.) Aren't a continuity obsessed Trek fan.
or
B.) Don't mind leaving your fucking brain at the door.
WAIT! Didn't I just say that Star Trek is a good movie? Yes, I did, but it is fucking STUPID. Full of Goddamn plot holes and retarded contrivances. Keep in mind that the guys who wrote the screenplay are the two fucking winners who wrote Transformers. Remember when a giant robot pissed coolant all over John Turturro in Transformers? Yeah, you can thank Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman for that and you can thank them for this stupid plot that shits all over Trek Continuity.
Here's where I'm going to go all spastic nerd, so if you want to skip my nervous breakdown--fine, I'm giving it a 3 out of 5.
Still with me? Good. It takes some mighty fucking kumquats, brass balls, huge fucking stones to write a screenplay that COMPLETELY wipes out forty odd years of continuity, but that is exactly what Orci and Kurtzman have done. Now, as Jim pointed out to me after my showing of the movie, there was no way I was going to love anything that erased Star Trek: Deep Space Nine out of continuity. He's right, but it goes deeper than that. This movie was specifically created to appeal to a broader audience. In some ways I can appreciate that (though the dying Nintendo fanboy in me looks at the dusty Wii sitting across the room and sees the horrible end result of appealing to the mainstream). But by wiping out continuity and introducing newer and hipper versions of characters we fans already love they are, to use a line from Gabe and Tycho of Penny Arcade, "selling our heritage to the same fucking guys who beat us up in P.E."
Want a small example? Orci and Kurtzman actually give us a stupid explanation of why McCoy is nicknamed "Bones." When Kirk and Bones meet for the first time Bones mentions his ex-wife only leaving him with his bones. Ha ha! Clever. Except if Orci and Kurtzman took two fucking seconds to think the goddamn nickname through or check out some BASIC Trek continuity they would have realized that he is nicknamed Bones because he is a DOCTOR...as in old sawbones? Hello, McFly?!
And please don't get me started on the fact that during the time period this film is set NO ONE knew what the Romulans looked like! Yet somehow everyone knows what they look like and that Nero's future Romulan ship was in fact Romulan. Even I know what Romulan ships look like from Nero's timeline and I DIDN'T FUCKING RECOGNIZE IT AS ROMULAN! And that's just the tip of the Trek-anachronism fest that permeates this movie. Seriously? Cardassian beer? Nuh-uh, even if the Federation had met the Cardassians at this point I really doubt we'd be trading fucking beer with evil aliens occupying and enslaving those poor Bajorans.
Want some more stupidity? Ok, I'll back off the crazy Trek minutia for a bit. How about our introduction to James Kirk as a precocious car thief. Never mind for a minute that the whole fucking scene is pointless and could(and SHOULD) have been entirely excised from the film, it's full of stupid moments that will make your head swim if you think about them for a second. So twelve-year-old Kirk steals his step father's car. The step father calls Kirk in an attempt to get his car back. What do we hear? We hear that obnoxious Nokia cell phone ring tone. You know the one, remember Jurassic Park 3? Remember William H. Macy's phone with the ring tone that was supposed to be the jingle for his company? Yeah, everyone knew that was a pre-loaded ring tone back then...am I really supposed to believe that THREE HUNDRED YEARS in the future that annoying ring tone will still exist!? Not to mention the fact that we actually SEE the Nokia phone in the car. Nokia advertising. In a Star Trek movie. Jesus. So young Kirk jams out to some Beastie Boys and wrecks a car, breaks the laws of physics by jumping clear of a moving vehicle and then tells a cop his name. Awesome. Wouldn't the bar-brawl scene have been a better introduction to Kirk? Considering it is the very next scene in the film...yes, yes it would.
How about the scene where Spock has Kirk ejected from the ship for disobeying orders and punching a security guard. Yes, Spock goes the HIGHLY illogical route, ignores the fucking ship brig and sends Kirk to a dangerous ice planet. Oh, but it gets better...this planet just so happens to be the planet that Nero sends Old Spock! It's the worst case of Deus-ex-Spockina! And to make matters worse, not only is Old Spock on this planet, but so is SCOTTY! There's a great big universe out there...too bad Orci and Kurtzman don't fucking realize it.
Then there is the humor. Some of it works...most of it does not. When you see Kirk with elephant man hands and a swollen tongue running around the Enterprise you'll understand. Or how about Scotty beaming into a maze of water tubes and being shot around the ship's innards like a balding-Scottish Augustus Gloop. Seriously, everyone who saw Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and bitched about the misplaced humor (for the record, love T3 but hate the humor in it) has no right to NOT complain about most of the humor in this movie because it's the same tone changing bullshit.
And of course there is the villain. Nero (Eric "I ruined Hulk" Bana)'s motivation is so terribly misguided it's laughable. First of all, unless you have read the awful comic book tie-in, Star Trek: Countdown, you won't have any real inkling of what Nero's intentions are. You see, the comic book explains that Nero is a pretty nice guy. A miner with a wife on Romulus and a kid on the way. One day while out mining Nero's ship comes upon a star about to go nova or something. He returns to the Romulan high council to warn the planet. Spock is there doing the same thing and of course, the entire council doesn't believe Spock or Nero. Spock convinces Nero that the scientists of Vulcan can stop the Nova from destroying Romulus and the ENTIRE GALAXY!!!!! How one nova is threatening the entire galaxy is never explained. So, of course the Vulcans won't help and Romulus is destroyed. SOMEHOW Nero blames Spock and the Federation. It makes absolutely no fucking sense! One book earlier Spock and Nero are friends, enjoying a drink and mind-melding with each other. Romulus explodes and suddenly it's a conspiracy planned by Spock to wipe out the Romulans. Seriously, people, Nemesis sucked, but at least the villain in that movie had motivation that made some Goddamned sense.
In the course of the film, Orci and Kurtzman make it a priority to point out through the characters that the time-line has changed and everything will be different now. Great, thanks for erasing forty years of continuity, guys. Everyone bitched about Rick Berman and Brannon Braga ruining Trek. And, yeah, I'd agree they were beating a dead horse. But what Orci and Kurtzman did was tantamount to skull-fucking that very same dead horse.
The sad part is, that the rest of the movie is pretty good. The stuff that doesn't piss all over continuity is fun and and exciting. The cast is pretty good, good enough that I wouldn't mind seeing another movie with them in it. Everyone keeps telling me that this is just another universe and the time-line I know and love still exists. Of course I know that. But this movie is going to be huge because of the "I don't even like Star Trek but this looks awesome" crowd. More than likely(unless Terminator Salvation actually becomes MY salvation and dethrones Trek) this is going to be fucking huge and Paramount is never going to be able to see the original time-line through the mountains of cash it will be making.
So, yeah. Despite all my griping, I liked it. It's good, not great. But you'll like it. Yes, you. The guy who has never even seen Star Trek before. Just know that you're getting a new franchise at the cost of my fandom. Because, while I'll still go see the new movies and may enjoy them to a certain extent, Star Trek just isn't Star Trek anymore and that makes me very sad.
3 griping fanboys out 5.
Skip to the bottom for VERY spoilerish ending gripe.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Ok, so in the end Nero is caught in the same temporal black hole thingy that sent him and Spock back in time to begin with only now it begins to destroy his ship. Why this time it is going to kill him is never explained. Chalk that one up to Orci and Kurtzman's shitty script. Kirk, in the spirit of old-school Trek, offers the hand of assistance in an effort to save relations between the Federation and Romulus. Nero, in typical scenery chewing villain behavior, says he would rather die than be saved. Ok, great, the black hole thingy will take care of his death. But then Kirk opens fire on Nero, destroying the ship. Really? That is totally not Star Trek. I mean, sure, it's something that I might have occasionally bitched about in Trek. But when it happens on screen it feels like a complete betrayal of the entire franchise. I was hoping for something along the lines of Batman Begins, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." Instead, Kirk looks like an ass, kicking a retarded kid after he falls on the playground. Are you proud of yourself Kirk?
Ok, enough bitching. Go see this fucker, you know you want to.
Ok, one more fanboyish gripe. Where the fuck were the Temporal Federation guys at to prevent Nero's time fucking? Seriously guys, coffee break or something? You've got a time-line to protect...
Read more...
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Say It Ain't So, Joe (Quesada)
Given the gargantuan haul over the weekend, we can assume most of the people who read a site like this have seen and formed some opinion on Marvel's latest film adaptation, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The friends and family of That's A Wrap! went into Friday's premiere with differing levels of expectation. My brother, a Wolverine fan-boy of the highest order, planned on being blown away. Billy, I'm sure, had some hope of a decent experience, having actually enjoyed the previous films in the series and never bashing the third installment as hard as most. I couldn't have come in with much lower hopes. A significant fan of the comics, I have fallen more and more out of love with this series over the years. But let's jump on below, where we can also discuss our good friend, Mr. Spoiler.I remember seeing and falling more than a little in love with Bryan Singer's 2000 effort even remarking what a great find they had in that guy I only knew from Snowy River: The McGregor Saga... the one that wasn't Guy Pearce. But it was easier to like and enjoy a comic movie back then. Remember how shitty things were back in 2000? We were only three years removed from Batman and Robin, TaW! was nearly a decade away from existing, the Red Sox hadn't won a title in almost 82 years and if someone asked me what my favorite Marvel Comics-based movie ever was... well, it would be a toss up between Blade and the 1990 direct-to-video Captain America with an Italian Red Skull.
And while the first one led to the current comic book/film explosion, it doesn't look so good in the mirror especially to a continuity whore like me that wonders why they changed Kitty to Rogue, where they put the other original members of the team and why they cast James "Where's the Box I Have to Fail to Act My Way Out Of" Marsden as my favorite character. By the time Singer was replaced with the auteur behind Red Dragon and they pulled a snuff film on the team leader and my favorite X-Man, Cyclops... let's just say I officially checked out on the series as a fan.
My already low expectation were about in line with the Rotten Tomatoes score in the mid-thirties. And when I finally made it home after work and my brother informed me he had to promise not to tell me what Billy thought of it... at that point I was mostly just hoping for a new G.I. Joe trailer.
The latest director in the franchise, Gavin Hood, ranges from lazy (computers in the mid-1970s, not explaining how a character named James Howlett got the handle Logan) to painfully bad (casting a chump like Danny Huston in the Brian Cox role of Stryker and wasting the sure-fire comedy home run that Deadpool should have been) to laughably bad (most every action scene).
The high point of the humor and low point for my soul was a close tie. The first was the "humorous" attempt at Wolverine trying out his claws in the bathroom, which was so Three Stooges-esque and slapstick I groaned and with CGI effects straight out of 1991. The other was the scene in Vietnam where Wolverine and Sabertooth fight back-to-back and Logan actually says, "Back-to-Back." At that exact moment, somewhere an angel died and the writer of Blankman filed a copyright infringement lawsuit. What took that moment to a whole other level was turning to my brother and commenting that I knew without a sliver of doubt they would say that line again in the final fight. I had to resist the urge to throw up a high-five request in the middle of the climax... I almost didn't.
While the movie was just terrible, I might actually look back fondly on the experience. I mean, who doesn't enjoy ripping a movie to shreds for weeks after its release? If I ever stop making Back-to-Back jokes or pulling apart the plot holes just shoot me in the head with adamantium and show me the movie again.
On that note, I have to have my say on the conclusion.... What fucking moron came up with that exactly? I mean the only absolutely necessary plot elements that MUST be in the movie are that he gets an adamantium enema and has no memory at the end. So they devalue the first because they never intended to use Wolverine... they just wanted to see if it could be done... really you spend $500 million on the demo version? How you know the last scene of your movie and can do ANYTHING to get to that point and still mess it up that badly is insane.
First off, what medical degree does Stryker use to decide that the brain will heal, but the memory won't. That's just stupid. Nevermind that they are raping their own continuity! Because Stryker is surprised Logan doesn't remember him in X2! And why didn't Stryker use that handy code word to shut Logan down in this film, since they mysteriously had one in X2? And why doesn't Sabretooth remember Logan for that matter? But the trick to the adamantium bullet is that it's the only thing that wil penetrate his skull. Okay, so just out of curiosity in the half dozen wars he fought in over 120 years, did Logan loose his memory every time he was shot in the head? Did Creed have to pull him aside and say, "Hey, it's cool. We're brothers. We heal from every wound. Let's go kill somebody." every time it happened? If so can I get those deleted scenes please? It all would have worked so much better if Stryker didn't try to explain to the audience what would happen. If it was just a happy accident, or if they tried something intelligent and have Logan's head messed up ever since the procedure and generally evolving to this naturally, either would have worked better. Instead it reads like a BAD comic script. "I will shoot Wolverine in the head. He will loose his memory because... ... ... I am evil! Mwa-ha-ha!"
Final score: D-
Unintentional Comedy Factor: Pure Gold... seriously, this might be the geek bad movie equivalent of what Showgirls is for homosexual men. We should have parties revolving around tearing this movie apart like Mystery Science Theater.
Read more...
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Treatise On Blue Dong
Zack Snyder is an artist. His canvas is celluloid. Whatever anyone says about his big screen adaptation of Alan Moore's beloved graphic novel Watchmen, the one thing that no one can deny is the uncompromising beauty of this film. Densely packed with nuances that demand repeat viewings Snyder's film is a paradox in the pantheon of comic book film adaptations. Can an adaptation be too elaborate and yet not enough? Hit the jump to find out.Watchmen is set in an alternate universe where masked avengers rose to prominence in the 1930s and have since become despised and outlawed. It's 1985, Richard Nixon is still president. The world is on the brink of global nuclear war(though no WOPR in sight) and a Comedian is killed in New York. Ok, not A comedian, THE Comedian. Former masked avenger and current government operative Edward Blake AKA The Comedian is killed in his posh apartment. Who was behind the killing and is it a precursor to something bigger? These are the questions that Watchmen asks.
The story is long and complicated and sadly for viewers who've never read the graphic novel, it's probably totally incoherent.
The major issue that exists in this film is the question I posed above the jump. Can an adaptation include too much and not enough of the source material all at once. Watchmen answers yes. YES! There are things that are left on the cutting room floor that absolutely must exist in order for the story to make sense and most importantly resonate with the viewer, and there are things that are left in the movie that are great to see but could have been trimmed to allow for more important things be included. The film is certainly watchable (no pun intended) but could have been so much more. The rumored extended edition DVD (said to include an extra hour of footage) has the potential to rectify these mistakes, but it's somewhat sad to see this version pushed on audiences now, when I know that better version exists.
Much has been made of the ending being changed, and I won't spoil it here, the ending works fine if you've never read the book. I understand why the changes were made, and aside from some small quibbles I have with the resolution. It's not going to replace the book's ending for me, but it doesn't make me angry.
Every frame of film is densely packed with details from the graphic novel that simply demand repeat viewings, and fans of the book will adore the attention to detail that exists on screen. Snyder should be commended for the fight he won in keeping these details in the film as well as keeping the setting and themes mostly intact. I know that the studio (and original screenplay penned by Metal Gear Solid voice actor David Hayter) wanted the film set in present day NYC. Snyder fought to keep the time period and other details true to the book and I commend him for that.
The acting is truly a mixed bag. Billy Crudup as blue superman Jon "Doc Manhattan" Osterman has a difficult job of making a mostly emotionless naked blue man an empathetic character using only his voice. He does a fairly good job. Crudup has prior voice acting experience from Princess Mononoke, being one of the only actors in that film to not rape my eardrums, he is much appreciated.
Jackie Earle Haley truly owns this film. His portrayal of crazed avenger Rorschach, is one of the finest performances I've seen in a comic book film or any other film. It's not quite Heath Ledger's Joker (You can thank the mask for that), but think of Watchmen and Jackie Earle Haley is going to be the first thing you think of. Unless you are infatuated with blue wiener.
On the other side of the acting spectrum, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, and Carla Gugino simply ruin every scene that they are in. The disturbing part is that they have important and necessary character arcs, without them the story simply could not exist. And they are horrible. HORRIBLE. For every battle Snyder won to keep the setting of the film accurate to the source material--any praise I give him for the good he's done, is tarnished by the terrible performances that he coaxes out of these actors.
And don't get me started on the prosthetic makeup, Moloch's strange ears, Nixon's wicked witch-esque nose, and Carla Gugino's age makeup (never thought I would miss Benjamin Button's makeup) are all just pathetically done. I can't help but think that if a director such as Guillermo del Toro, who is passionate about prosthetics, worked with this film it would be so much better.
In the end the makeup is a small gripe, and the film that exists IS good. It's loud, fun, and sad all at the same time. It's no replacement for the graphic novel. Nothing is. But as a companion piece to the book, it works. The story isn't as deep, the emotional core of the book isn't there. It's a blue ghostly circulatory system walking through the kitchen of a government testing facility. With some extra care, that director's cut might just be able to restructure it's intrinsic field into a more complete experience. Right now, it's adequate but slightly disappointing.
3 out of 5
treatise
'Till next time!
Read more...
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Like A Pair Of Old Socks
I have a theory. Something I've been formulating for more than a decade. In the Friday the 13th movies psycho killer Jason Voorhees stalks the woods surrounding Camp Crystal Lake(and sometimes Manhattan if you want to get technical) and picks off any pesky youngsters who wander near. Of course, the horror movie laws dictate that anyone caught performing an illegal or morally corrupt act will die. Look, I don't have to explain this to you. I'm sure you've seen Scream. It's such a well known idea that it's a damned cliche.
Anyways, my theory is that Jason Voorhees is actually a fundamentalist christian gone insane from isolation. Think about it! Seriously, he only kills people who have either A.)done recreational drugs or had intent to sell illegal substances, B.)have had pre-marital sex, C.)were dicks or D.)all of the above. The innocent ones might be attacked, but rarely die. Because Jason realizes that they are really good and let's them live, until the sequel at least.
The recently release Friday The 13th rebirth not only reaffirms my theory but takes it to absurd heights.
Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes horror movie label is usually a kiss of remake death. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror have gotten the Michael Bay touch earlier this decade and I was fairly strong in my hatred of those two movies.
I didn't have much faith in Platinum Dunes and when I heard that they were doing a remake of Friday the 13th I was at first skeptical. But then I realized something, aside from the first movie in the series(a genuinely scary thriller) all the other Friday films were fun but in no way good. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Friday movies, but in much the same way that Owen Wilson's mother probably loves her son. Let me be brutally honest, there isn't much that can be done hurt the series any further. I mean, they've already taken Jason into space!
So with that being said, this Friday the 13th is an admirable entry into the series that corrects some of the missteps that the later films made while missing some of the charm that the earlier films contained.
This film is being marketed as a remake/reboot of the series but in the opening flashback teaser(a retelling of the original film's ending with Star Trek Deep Space Nine's Nana Visitor playing Mrs. Voorhees) it is clear that it's NOT a remake but actually could reside within continuity. It's much the same way that Bryan Singer's Superman Returns is a sequel the first two Supes films while ignoring the latter two. This Friday could conceivably exist after Part 2(Jason even begins the film wearing his hillbilly bag from Part 2!).
This is important for one big reason, it allows the filmmakers to dial back the supernatural elements that became so prevalent in the later films and make this just a back-to-basics scary slasher film. It's done well enough that Jason could be shucked from the narrative and replaced with a random crazy killer and the film would have still worked fairly well.
Which probably answers your big question. Is the new Friday the 13th a good movie. Yes and no. If you like slasher horror films then undoubtedly,yes, you will like this movie. It's got some very interesting kills, some very funny lines and most importantly it doesn't shit on the source material. There's a fairly well done dramatic plot with Clay Miller (Jared Padalecki best know from TV's Supernatural) looking for his sister after she disappears near Crystal Lake.
But, if you don't like movies of the horror variety then you probably won't find much here to like. The direction is competent if bland. The only real attempt at a stylistic direction is the shaky cam. Yes, the hand-held camera shakiness that destroyed the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is back in this. Thankfully it's kept to a minimum here, but still rears it's ugly head now and again. When it happens it's very distracting. Director Marcus Nispel is responsible for both films, so I'm glad that he at least had some restraint in this one.
The acting is pretty bad. Aside from Padalecki, Amanda Righetti(CBS's The Mentalist) does a fairly good job slumming it in this as Clay's sister. Other than these two the rest of the cast is forgettable(unless you notice some random actors from other productions, like Dick Cassablancas from Veronica Mars or the Faux Alan York from 24).
Most of the "scares" come from music cues that are fairly predictable and from people turning around to find Jason standing behind them, so it's not a very frightening movie. But, come on, it's a slasher horror flick, it's not supposed to be SCARY!
And, of course, it's an EXTREMELY cliched movie. It uses every horror movie trope. It's both a boon and a curse. It's like slipping on your favorite pair of socks. They are so damn comfortable until you notice the giant hole that your toe sticks through. You can still wear them, but that hole is going to be nagging you all day long.
So this one is for the fans(Jim, Garrett, sorry!) only. If you love slasher horror films or just the old Friday movies, then rest assured you will probably like this. If those descriptions don't fit you then this is certainly not the movie for you.
2.5 snowcaps out of 5!
'Till next time!
Read more...
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Old Spice Commercials Were Better...
I can clearly remember the day it happened. When my love affair happened. Twelfth grade. It was a good year. 1999. I sought it out and caressed the sharp edges and thrust it hard into the willing slot. It was my first time. And it was GLORIOUS.Army of Darkness. VHS. Full screen. Without any more vaguely sexual metaphors, I can safely say that summer changed me into the film buff that I am today. There were many films that summer and Army of Darkness was a shining beacon amongst them.
Army of Darkness opened my eyes and introduced me to the awesomeness of Bruce Campbell. You may not know his name, but I'd put wager good money that you've seen him in something. Spider-Man(one, two or three!)? Hell, he spent a season as a recurring cast member on Ellen. Fact is, the guy isn't a big star but he's a face and he's got a fan base. I count myself in that select group.
So, when I hear news of a movie starring Campbell playing Campbell...well, I get excited. Sadly, this should be a lesson in tempering expectations...
My Name Is Bruce stars Campbell as himself. Campbell is a hard drinking, obnoxious prink, who is stuck making C-grade sequels to awful direct-to-video(or Sci-Fi Channel originals)movies. He's just gone through a divorce, his cast and crew members hate him and for good reason. As portrayed Campbell is a total ass. His only "friend" seems to be his agent Mills Toddner(the always affable Ted Raimi) and even Mills is repeatedly fired and rehired by Campbell on a whim.
Meanwhile, in the small town of Gold-Lick, not all is right. Jeff, Campbell's most obsessively dedicated fan, is trying to get lucky in a decrepit cemetery when he unwittingly unlocks Guan-Di! Guan-Di, the ancient Chinese god of war(and bean curd) kills Jeff's friends and begins to terrorize the small town.
Of course, the only thing for the good...stupid...folks of Gold-Lick to do is send Jeff to kidnap Bruce Campbell. Cause...um, as I mentioned above the townsfolk are stupid.
Campbell thinks that the town's plight is an elaborate birthday present concocted by Mills and decides to play along, until he comes face to face with the demon.
The plot is paper thin. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, if the jokes were any good. But they aren't. Racist stereotypes, gay jokes, and retreads of old Campbell movie jokes are the best you'll find here. Occasionally there will be something worth tittering at, but these gems come too far and few between to make the rest of the movie worth watching.
Characters attitudes change between scenes with absolutely no context. Literally, Jeff's mother goes from vehemently hating Campbell to being in love with him in thirty seconds.
The most consistent thing about the script is the tired-ass "Bruce, your hand is in an inappropriate place" joke that is repeated at least eight times.
Campbell himself is portrayed as a complete ass. Which I'm sure was meant to be funny, but he's obnoxious here. The real Campbell is sincere and funny in a self-deprecating way. Why couldn't the movie show that Campbell?
Campbell serves as director on this flick, and while he doesn't do a terrible job, it is very clear that this movie was always meant to go down the direct-to-video route. It's lit like a bad television show.
The acting is awful right across the board. Everyone who isn't named Bruce Campbell or Ted Raimi(who plays THREE separate characters) is just horrendous.
So, there I was, watching the credits roll at the end of the movie. When I see the writing credit pop on the screen. Mark Verheiden? Why does that name sound so familiar? Power of IMDB, GO! Battlestar Galactica? THE OATH? No. Noo, no, no, no, no, no...dear God. NO! How does the man responsible for what is arguably one of the greatest Battlestar episodes(Gaeta's attempted coup of Galactica) write...this.
Looks like BSG is Verheiden's yin to this steaming pile of yang.
In the end, My Name Is Bruce is a jumble of wasted opportunities. It seems that the producers were aiming to MAKE a Bruce Campbell film by making an awful movie. It's all very meta and terribly mediocre. This one is strictly for fans of Bruce Campbell. And by fans, I mean super obsessed "I-love-The-Man-With-The-Screaming-Brain" fans. All others need not bother.
1 chainsaw hand out of 5
'Till next Time!
Don't forget to check out the That's A Wrap Podcast!
Read more...
Monday, February 2, 2009
Six More Weeks Of Winter?
Punxsutawney Phil is one of the hallmarks of Pennsylvania. Once a year the most famous groundhog in Pennsylvania is forcibly exhumed from his stump at Gobbler's Knob and predicts whether or not we will have six more weeks of winter. Though I wouldn't say that Phil is the "hardest" working hog in the business(That'd be his brother, Gus, Pennsylvania lottery spokes-hog), but he is the only one to have a movie framed around his annual hullabaloo: Harold Ramis's 1993 classic, Groundhog Day!
Bill Murray stars as the acerbic Pittsburgh(yeah, way to go Stillers!) weatherman Phil Connors who has big dreams of predicting the weather on a major network. Phil just cannot stand doing local puff pieces because he thinks he's above them. Unfortunately for Phil it's Groundhog Day and the station has tasked him with covering the venerable holiday.
Phil, of course, is nonplussed by this. I mean, can you blame him? His name is Phil and he has to cover a story about a groundhog named Phil. Can you say awkward? Of course, Phil doesn't have the greatest time covering the festivities and to make matters worse a snow storm(which he DIDN'T predict) is descending on the town making it impossible to leave Punxsutawney.
Phil goes to bed that evening hoping to escape the Pennsylvania hamlet but when he wakes up he's reliving the same day over again! At first Phil is upset and shocked at this predicament, he tries to convince his producer Rita(Andie MacDowell) that he's reliving the same day. But suitably no one believes him.
After he realizes that nothing he does matters, Phil decides to take advantage of his situation. He becomes familiar with the town and it's citizens, but then he sets his sights on the one thing he can't seem to get: Rita.
Though he tries valiantly to learn everything about Rita and pretend that he loves the very same things he is unable to seal the deal. Ramis does a fantastic job of hinting at just how many times Phil has looped through the day without actually showing all of them, giving the audience just a taste of the day replaying without driving us insane along with Phil.
After not being able to bed Rita, Phil snaps and begins an exercise in suicide. Killing himself numerous times, everyday Phil wakes up from the dead as if nothing has actually happened. Eventually Phil decides to be himself and try to woo Rita without trying to bed her. It's when this happens that Phil starts to change. He becomes less self absorbed and generally nicer to everyone. He begins to better himself and learn new things.
Ramis handles the third act of the film with a deft hand, keeping it humorous but also giving it an emotional heft when Phil becomes a hero and saves numerous people throughout the town. Murray is wonderful, going from serious to funny in a moments notice without it ruining the flow of the film. It's no wonder that Murray would find work years later in such serious works as Lost In Translation and while he's still primarily a comedic actor, it's nice to see his flexibility in this film and others.
Groundhog Day is a funny and sometimes moving classic '90s comedy. Although this type of story has been done many times since(The X-Files and Stargate SG-1 immediately come to mind), Groundhog Day remains as engaging and hilarious as it was the day it was released. Besides, what other movie can claim to have BOTH Andie MacDowell and Chris Elliot in starring roles and make them tolerable? That's right. No other movie.
Gus the groundhog says: "Though Groundhog Day focuses on my obnoxious brother's holiday, it's STILL the bee's knees!"
You heard it here, folks. Gus likes it. It's a winner.
Read more...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
My Favorite Sports Movies
(In no particular order)
The Mighty Ducks
Although several movie studios have made classic sports movies, nothing tugs at my sports nut heart then the Disney classics of my childhood. One of the first in the line is 1992's 'The Mighty Ducks'. What other movie can you name that then became the namesake of a professional team (NHL's Mighty Ducks of Anaheim)?
The Mighty Ducks is the story of Gordon Bombay, a hot shot Minneapolis lawyer who is at the top of his game. After losing his first trial, Gordon goes on a high speed drive while drinking a bottle of vodka. Gordon is then pulled over and is forced into community service. During the opening credits we are shown that Gordon was a fantastic Pee Wee hockey player. He is going in for a penalty shot and hits the post and costs his team, the Hawks, the championship.
Gordon is then given a Pee Wee team to coach as his community service, the Unnamed District 5. It is shown that the team is basically a rag tag team of poor kids that are using hand-me-down hockey gear.
I an attempt to find something from his past, Gordon returns to the old hockey store where he grew up at and gets some life lessons from the old store owner, Hans. Hans, an old Swedish man, helps revoke Gordon's passion for hockey. We have learned that the season that Gordon missed the penalty shot was the year his father died which had caused Gordon to give up his hockey dreams.
Bombay then returns to the District 5 team with a new found spirit, gets the team proper equipment, and then renames the team to the Ducks.
The Ducks then go on a tear and start to become a championship team. They then make it to the final game to face the Hawks. The Hawks are Bombay's former team who are still coached by the same man, the ever popular dick coach Jack Reilly. Reilly is your A-typical youth league coach that is always looking for the 'W' at all costs. Being a youth sports organizer I despise these type of ego driven coaches who are teaching kids this unclassy style of play. This personally makes him the perfect antagonist for this movie.
The championship game is a perfect ending for any sports movie. The Hawks take a huge early lead and appear to cruise to victory. I would be perfectly content with this ending. The Ducks, a rag tag group, comes out of no where to the finals and lose. This situation happens all the time. And being a movie for kids aged 8-13 can teach them that you can learn just as much from losing as you can from winning. Of course, this IS a Disney movie, so the happy fluffy ending is what we will be left with.
The Ducks then probably use more trick plays than the Harlem Globetrotters and the And 1 basketball tour combined to win. The creme de la creme of these is the 'Flying V' which pays homage to their name sake. It then takes a penalty shot for the team to wrap up their championship. Charlie, who was the one that drew the penalty, is the one to take the shot. I guess the rest they say is history.
I personally enjoy D2:The Mighty Ducks more then its prequel. I chose the orginal due to its success creating my first NHL team.
Due to the connection of the movie, I fell in love with the Ducks. They had quite a few successful teams through my childhood, but of course broke my heart when they changed owners and basically elminated themselves from anything to do with the movie.
UGH, this logo still makes me cringe.
The Mighty Ducks is the story of Gordon Bombay, a hot shot Minneapolis lawyer who is at the top of his game. After losing his first trial, Gordon goes on a high speed drive while drinking a bottle of vodka. Gordon is then pulled over and is forced into community service. During the opening credits we are shown that Gordon was a fantastic Pee Wee hockey player. He is going in for a penalty shot and hits the post and costs his team, the Hawks, the championship.
Gordon is then given a Pee Wee team to coach as his community service, the Unnamed District 5. It is shown that the team is basically a rag tag team of poor kids that are using hand-me-down hockey gear.
I an attempt to find something from his past, Gordon returns to the old hockey store where he grew up at and gets some life lessons from the old store owner, Hans. Hans, an old Swedish man, helps revoke Gordon's passion for hockey. We have learned that the season that Gordon missed the penalty shot was the year his father died which had caused Gordon to give up his hockey dreams.
Bombay then returns to the District 5 team with a new found spirit, gets the team proper equipment, and then renames the team to the Ducks.
The Ducks then go on a tear and start to become a championship team. They then make it to the final game to face the Hawks. The Hawks are Bombay's former team who are still coached by the same man, the ever popular dick coach Jack Reilly. Reilly is your A-typical youth league coach that is always looking for the 'W' at all costs. Being a youth sports organizer I despise these type of ego driven coaches who are teaching kids this unclassy style of play. This personally makes him the perfect antagonist for this movie.
The championship game is a perfect ending for any sports movie. The Hawks take a huge early lead and appear to cruise to victory. I would be perfectly content with this ending. The Ducks, a rag tag group, comes out of no where to the finals and lose. This situation happens all the time. And being a movie for kids aged 8-13 can teach them that you can learn just as much from losing as you can from winning. Of course, this IS a Disney movie, so the happy fluffy ending is what we will be left with.
The Ducks then probably use more trick plays than the Harlem Globetrotters and the And 1 basketball tour combined to win. The creme de la creme of these is the 'Flying V' which pays homage to their name sake. It then takes a penalty shot for the team to wrap up their championship. Charlie, who was the one that drew the penalty, is the one to take the shot. I guess the rest they say is history.
I personally enjoy D2:The Mighty Ducks more then its prequel. I chose the orginal due to its success creating my first NHL team.
Due to the connection of the movie, I fell in love with the Ducks. They had quite a few successful teams through my childhood, but of course broke my heart when they changed owners and basically elminated themselves from anything to do with the movie.
UGH, this logo still makes me cringe.The Mighty Ducks shows that anyone can overcome adversity and that you can persevere from the past, even returning to something you never thought you could return to.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
