In a few short sentences, I will blow your mind.
Piranha 3D largely accomplishes what it sets out to do in creating a fun, gory, and decidedly unsadistic creature feature. The only real possible misstep is that the movie covers its fairly slow first half by bombarding the viewer with nudity and unnecessary backstory to characters. However, such a technique is commonplace enough, and both the boobshots and actors are pretty quality to the point that at least my (admittedly semi-tipsy) self was entertained enough until everything went to hell. I have no idea if people who only really like modern horror would enjoy this, but for people like me who were basically raised on the USA Network's "Up All Night," this movie was a treat, and probably my favorite Aja film thus far.
WELL THAT'S IT. Seriously, I would be a pathetic sad man if I went into any real detail on this film. To its credit, Piranha 3D actually meets how a normal person would imagine such a film to be in the best possible light. There are tits, ridiculous deaths, actors clearly enjoying an easy paycheck. There's no real need to discuss anything in depth, as this film is about as complex as a wafer, and unlike Scott Pilgrim, I can't imagine anyone is going to cling to this film as some sort of essential sounding bell of their life's epoch. Besides, heaven forbid someone is reading this without having seen the film. The best I can say about Piranha 3D is this: if you think that there is a chance you might have fun at a movie called Piranha 3D, you will have fun watching it.
Or at least I'd like to say that, but a perusal of various horror reviews have shown a distinct minority that disliked the film. Most of the these reviews are awful, and I'm probably just going to spend the rest of the review laughing at them, so feel free to let yourself out of the moving car.
Probably the worst was Cinefatastique's review, which was written by the horror fan who clearly now only enjoys SEKRIT INDIE HORROR, and never quite understood the point of anything. Pretty much every line of the review includes one movie reference or another. Let me let you in on a secret: I'm terrible at writing reviews of music, and frequently resort to talking about other albums because it helps to distract the audience from the fact that you can't really illuminate what's right/wrong with the thing you're actually reviewing. I'm not saying comparisons are per se wrong, but it's essentially laziness when the main point of your review is that "these things are bad because I liked these other scenes from obscure movies better."
Another point from the review, that's been repeated in others, is that Aja is somehow trying to be too clever and is trying to alter audience expectation, or something. These it's essentially impossible to have an "straight" slasher or creature feature anymore. The best one can hope for is that the movie doesn't force you to glance at the fourth wall, and thankfully Piranha 3D avoids that. I'm willing to accept that Aja is perhaps being a little too clever in showing the relationship between sex and violence when a topless para-sailor is floating in the air, but is the audience really going to notice something like that? Clearly, faux-intellectual shit like Hostel wants you to consider IMPORTANT ISSUES behind the sadism, but getting mad at a T&A gorefest because there might be some sort of subtext strikes me as a critic trying to find uranium in a coal mine.
Bottom line, unless you have some sort of horrible auto-literary analysis disorder that can't be cured by whiskey, and you like seeing tits and/or ridiculous 3D gore, go see this movie.
ODDS 'n ENDS:
1) Jesus Christ, how did Vampire Suck make more than Scott Pilgrim or Piranha 3D? I don't really feel bad for the latter considering it got a decent per-theater average, but seeing Pilgrim get around 15 million in two weeks is depressing, both for the fact that it deserved to have more attention, and now I'm going to have to deal with years of wretched nerds act like the movie is their fucking special treasure that the normals cannot appreciate.
2) I've seen all the Resident Evil films, and at least looked up plot summaries to all of the games, and I still have no idea what was going on in that trailer.
3) This was actually the first 3-D film I've seen, and the only thing I can really say about it is that my girlfriend and I enjoyed making Blues Brothers jokes before the movie started.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Glenn Beck's "The Overton Window"
(When I first planned a review for The Overton Window, I thought of composing a wacky send-up of its prose. But that idea was over twenty chapters ago, and now that I'm finished, nothing sounds worse than attempting this. So, just enjoy some good old-fashioned vitriol instead!)
Let me be clear, I know this review is all very outside looking in. Glenn Beck could have written "Back Jauer in Titland" and gotten the very same reaction (hell, probably a better one from me) from every person in the world. Glenn Beck is a totem that needs no introduction, one so strong that whatever he attaches himself to will be loved or hated regardless of content. Looking at positive reviews of the book, people actually seemed to enjoy the fact that characters will randomly go into talk-radio arias for ten minutes straight. And while I guess they have a right to do that, what bothers me about the book is what bothers me about Tea Party people in general: aside from a vague hatred of government, there's not much there. Oh yeah and also that it is a terrible fucking book.
It's hard to tell how much of the writing is from Beck and how much it is from his three ghostwriters (considering the oft-reported news that one of the ghostwriters wrote a book fairly similar to Beck's, it's likely more the latter party), but who cares, shit sucks. There are pieces of fanfiction on Freep where the obvious author self-insertion finally blows the lid on President NOBAMA and beats up the New York Times editor board and finally makes out with his step daughter WAIT DELETE DELETE that have more literary worth than The Overton Window.
One nice thing about reviewing The Overton Window is that while listening to it, I could basically zone out half the time, since Beck basically repeats what has happened so far in the plot about once every ten minutes. Saying that Beck looks down at his readers is like saying that characters in The Overton Window are a little chatty. Beck's clear lack of respect for his audience is probably the most central theme in the book. While it's true that subtext isn't abundant in thrillers, there is no such thing as "overstated" in the Glennverse. Absolutely nothing is suggested. When describing the living quarters of the protagonist's father, the narrator talks about the clean, sparse nature of it, then immediately follows with a "this meant he didn't like people very much." Glenn Beck doesn't trust his readers to connect any dots, but sit in thrall as he conducts a ten-hour long Christian puppet show.
The main character is Noah, who is a hotshot advertizing executive who doesn't really care about American politics, but wants to bang Molly, who is a operative in the "Founder's Keepers," the novel's Tea Party substitute. Glenn Beck helpfully explains that the Founder's Keepers are just patriots that really love America, and task their members with remembering lines from Thomas Paine and John Adams, because Glenn Beck apparently really liked that part from Fahrenheit 451. The only other named Trapper Keeper we meet is Hollis, who is from Appalachia, forges his own bullet casings, and in the most sexually charged moment in the book, gives Noah a "man hug." Also, all those racists and kooks in the group are actually government plants designed to make the group look bad. Representing the opposing faction is Noah's father, who heads the above advertising agency and is planning Something Bad so the government can take control of everything and remove Freedoms.
There's also a B-plot involving some conservative youtube superstar (who has just enough self-loathing to make it the obvious Glenn Beck self-insert) and a FBI agent trying to bust a cell of domestic terrorists planning an attack on Las Vegas. Every review I've read basically ignores this part of the story (as every reviewer clearly either didn't actually suffer through the book, or assigned some luckless intern the duty to highlight the funny parts), and let me be kind here: the B-plot isn't good, but a part of me actually tolerated those sections as at least something actually happens with those two.
Here's the thing: Nothing actually happens in Noah and Molly's section. I'm not exaggerating, here's the entirety of the entire plotline on their end: Noah goes to Tea Party conference, ineffectively attacks police officer while drunk, goes to and out of prison, sleeps, wakes up and hangs with Tea Party, gets spiked sweet tea, wakes up, goes after Molly, reaches Nevada with Molly, gets out of car to be arrested by cops to save Molly, is tortured, saved by his dad, and joins dad's evil company as a man on the inside.
Maybe The Overton Window is a secret Kafka-esque indictment of modern life, but I'm guessing Beck just doesn't understand that generally protagonists in thrillers aren't incredibly passive schmucks. They have literally no effect on the nuclear bomb subplot. Noah just sits around being lectured either by his evil dad (who doesn't like people, as explained about six dozen times) or Molly (who fucking loves freedom), or passively using his connections to smooth out plot problems.
I'm not saying that Noah needed to go out and roundhouse kick some terrorists to be a viable thriller hero. I love John le Carre, and it's not like George Smiley is a rough-edged action hero. However, it's not like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was about Smiley sitting at his desk reading operations reports from other people while leering at women. Noah can't even figure out what's happening even after his father basically explains the entire plot. Is this really the person we're supposed to relate to?
Again, I guess it doesn't matter, just like this book. I'm honestly sick of this review, so I'm going to go play Dragon Quest IX, look forward to watching (and reviewing) Piranha 3D, and let you listen to Frank Turner's "Sons of Liberty," which in less than four minutes contains more entertaining and stirring anti-government sentiment than The Overton Window could muster in eight hours.
PUNCH BECK FACES
Let me be clear, I know this review is all very outside looking in. Glenn Beck could have written "Back Jauer in Titland" and gotten the very same reaction (hell, probably a better one from me) from every person in the world. Glenn Beck is a totem that needs no introduction, one so strong that whatever he attaches himself to will be loved or hated regardless of content. Looking at positive reviews of the book, people actually seemed to enjoy the fact that characters will randomly go into talk-radio arias for ten minutes straight. And while I guess they have a right to do that, what bothers me about the book is what bothers me about Tea Party people in general: aside from a vague hatred of government, there's not much there. Oh yeah and also that it is a terrible fucking book.
It's hard to tell how much of the writing is from Beck and how much it is from his three ghostwriters (considering the oft-reported news that one of the ghostwriters wrote a book fairly similar to Beck's, it's likely more the latter party), but who cares, shit sucks. There are pieces of fanfiction on Freep where the obvious author self-insertion finally blows the lid on President NOBAMA and beats up the New York Times editor board and finally makes out with his step daughter WAIT DELETE DELETE that have more literary worth than The Overton Window.
One nice thing about reviewing The Overton Window is that while listening to it, I could basically zone out half the time, since Beck basically repeats what has happened so far in the plot about once every ten minutes. Saying that Beck looks down at his readers is like saying that characters in The Overton Window are a little chatty. Beck's clear lack of respect for his audience is probably the most central theme in the book. While it's true that subtext isn't abundant in thrillers, there is no such thing as "overstated" in the Glennverse. Absolutely nothing is suggested. When describing the living quarters of the protagonist's father, the narrator talks about the clean, sparse nature of it, then immediately follows with a "this meant he didn't like people very much." Glenn Beck doesn't trust his readers to connect any dots, but sit in thrall as he conducts a ten-hour long Christian puppet show.
The main character is Noah, who is a hotshot advertizing executive who doesn't really care about American politics, but wants to bang Molly, who is a operative in the "Founder's Keepers," the novel's Tea Party substitute. Glenn Beck helpfully explains that the Founder's Keepers are just patriots that really love America, and task their members with remembering lines from Thomas Paine and John Adams, because Glenn Beck apparently really liked that part from Fahrenheit 451. The only other named Trapper Keeper we meet is Hollis, who is from Appalachia, forges his own bullet casings, and in the most sexually charged moment in the book, gives Noah a "man hug." Also, all those racists and kooks in the group are actually government plants designed to make the group look bad. Representing the opposing faction is Noah's father, who heads the above advertising agency and is planning Something Bad so the government can take control of everything and remove Freedoms.
There's also a B-plot involving some conservative youtube superstar (who has just enough self-loathing to make it the obvious Glenn Beck self-insert) and a FBI agent trying to bust a cell of domestic terrorists planning an attack on Las Vegas. Every review I've read basically ignores this part of the story (as every reviewer clearly either didn't actually suffer through the book, or assigned some luckless intern the duty to highlight the funny parts), and let me be kind here: the B-plot isn't good, but a part of me actually tolerated those sections as at least something actually happens with those two.
Here's the thing: Nothing actually happens in Noah and Molly's section. I'm not exaggerating, here's the entirety of the entire plotline on their end: Noah goes to Tea Party conference, ineffectively attacks police officer while drunk, goes to and out of prison, sleeps, wakes up and hangs with Tea Party, gets spiked sweet tea, wakes up, goes after Molly, reaches Nevada with Molly, gets out of car to be arrested by cops to save Molly, is tortured, saved by his dad, and joins dad's evil company as a man on the inside.
Maybe The Overton Window is a secret Kafka-esque indictment of modern life, but I'm guessing Beck just doesn't understand that generally protagonists in thrillers aren't incredibly passive schmucks. They have literally no effect on the nuclear bomb subplot. Noah just sits around being lectured either by his evil dad (who doesn't like people, as explained about six dozen times) or Molly (who fucking loves freedom), or passively using his connections to smooth out plot problems.
I'm not saying that Noah needed to go out and roundhouse kick some terrorists to be a viable thriller hero. I love John le Carre, and it's not like George Smiley is a rough-edged action hero. However, it's not like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was about Smiley sitting at his desk reading operations reports from other people while leering at women. Noah can't even figure out what's happening even after his father basically explains the entire plot. Is this really the person we're supposed to relate to?
Again, I guess it doesn't matter, just like this book. I'm honestly sick of this review, so I'm going to go play Dragon Quest IX, look forward to watching (and reviewing) Piranha 3D, and let you listen to Frank Turner's "Sons of Liberty," which in less than four minutes contains more entertaining and stirring anti-government sentiment than The Overton Window could muster in eight hours.
PUNCH BECK FACES
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Scott Pilgrim, World, Etc.
You know what the big fad in Scott Pilgrim reviews are? Giving some sort of a rundown of your nerd cred, or lack thereof. Maybe it's a little unfair that some reviewers are dismissing the film based on the type of eternal heavenly audience that is going to be seeing this movie, but it's not like the movie is welcoming your average moviegoer with open arms. This isn't like your average summer comic book film that at least pretends to pander to your grandmother with a wacky rundown of the plot or having Stan Lee stare around to make you feel safe. Scott Pilgrim kind of hates you, Mom.
That's all I'm going to say regarding some subjective review of the audience FOR NOW. I do think it's important to note that I've read all but the last volume of the printed Scott Pilgrim series, and I haven't read the last one because the Wikipedia summary of it sounded fucking awful (I'm not going to spoil it except to say the strength of the series lay in the cutsey intermeshing of the banal with the fantastical, and in the last volume it looks like O'Malley went FUCK THAT MAKE IT LIKE A REAL VIDEO GAME), so yes.
The strength of the film version of Scott Pilgrim, and its fundamental difference from the print version, is probably that I don't really have to bother explaining the plot of the film. Wright clearly doesn't care about the niceties of the plot, but just wants to fuck with fight scenes and wacky pop-ups that are like a 14-year-old's (who has never been on the internet) introduction to post-modernism. This meshes most closely with the first volume, which clearly had no idea of what was going on but had more fun with a myriad of strange in-jokes and video game references. The movie sort of follows the second and third volumes, "sort of follows" code for "basically just include the fights from those volumes." After that, where the comic gradually disintegrated into a bizarre soap opera of itself, Wright just ignores all that retarded emotional subtext and just has Scott Orgasm a Girl to Death.
(I've seen more than a few posts from nerds saying that it would have been better if the film had been split into two parts, which mystifies me. Honestly, I wish I'd never read the comic and just seen the film, as it's a far better product than the original, and lengthening it by a few hours would have allowed all the stupid emotional shit to drip in. And besides, haven't you people seen Wright's other stuff? I love the man, but he is -terrible- at those kinds of scenes. OH NO MOM NO MOM.)
If anything, the film really is worth seeing just for the cinematic trickery, if you're into that sort of thing. I'm sure there are movies that would have accomplished the feat better with the budget Wright had, but currently I can't think of any movies with the same sort of literal kinetic flair as here. In other words, imagine that Speed Racer abomination if it had been made by someone with an eye for what the kids like besides trenchcoats. Oh yeah, and most of the performers are pretty good and the soundtrack didn't make me want to kill myself!
Did you notice I said "most?" Eh-yes.
Now, I'm not some horrible movie snob. I know that Cera occupies a certain sphere of movie hyperlink that, once implanted, will more likely than not attract a certain folk who otherwise would not see the movie. But Jesus Christ, I am so sick of him. He is a horrible man who while I do not wish ill toward due to his passive luck in Hollywood being happy in him having the same fucking role over and over and OVER, I also hope something happens that stops making him some ersatz indie darling.
The worst part is that there were better choices here, even if you look at obvious actors. Was Jospeh Gordon-Levitt too busy or something? Fuck, even Zac Efron (I WATCHED SEVENTEEN AGAIN AND FUCK YOU IT WAS KIND OF FUNNY) would have been a better Scott substitute. Again, the movie wasn't totally ruined by Cera's perpetual puberty machine, but part of my brain was constantly muttering about how after I read the first volume, I remarked to myself ,"GEE I WONDER IF MICHAEL CERA WILL GET THIS ROLE" I don't want to get all deeply critical about a fucking fake manga, but the Scott in the comic generally had something of a backbone conflicting with his laziness. Cera's Scott is just an enormous whiny pussy, and part of me suspects that certain omissions and changes to the plot were Wright's attempt to rebalance the story around this new re-characterization of the protagonist.
So, yes. I liked the movie, albeit as a distraction from the crushing conga line life, even moreso than the comic.
Other random musings, some vaguely spoilery:
1) HOW IS M. NIGHT STILL ABLE TO GET MOVIES. I also am not understanding that for a movie about a demon on an elevator, he did not call it HELLIVATOR. Oh wait, I do know, M. Night is a humorless prick who still thinks people take him seriously.
2) Am I the only one who was a little unnerved how Wright focused on Wallace's promiscuity? The comics certainly contained their fair share of references, but the movie possibly had more HEY LOOK THE GAY GUY IS KIND OF A SLUTTY SLUT. Still, it's better than how gay people are treated in most movies of this type (that being a magical creature that solves all problems of the heteros).
3) Possibly the only good thing at having Cera as the main character: Ann Veal as the evil lesbian ex-girlfriend.
That's all I'm going to say regarding some subjective review of the audience FOR NOW. I do think it's important to note that I've read all but the last volume of the printed Scott Pilgrim series, and I haven't read the last one because the Wikipedia summary of it sounded fucking awful (I'm not going to spoil it except to say the strength of the series lay in the cutsey intermeshing of the banal with the fantastical, and in the last volume it looks like O'Malley went FUCK THAT MAKE IT LIKE A REAL VIDEO GAME), so yes.
The strength of the film version of Scott Pilgrim, and its fundamental difference from the print version, is probably that I don't really have to bother explaining the plot of the film. Wright clearly doesn't care about the niceties of the plot, but just wants to fuck with fight scenes and wacky pop-ups that are like a 14-year-old's (who has never been on the internet) introduction to post-modernism. This meshes most closely with the first volume, which clearly had no idea of what was going on but had more fun with a myriad of strange in-jokes and video game references. The movie sort of follows the second and third volumes, "sort of follows" code for "basically just include the fights from those volumes." After that, where the comic gradually disintegrated into a bizarre soap opera of itself, Wright just ignores all that retarded emotional subtext and just has Scott Orgasm a Girl to Death.
(I've seen more than a few posts from nerds saying that it would have been better if the film had been split into two parts, which mystifies me. Honestly, I wish I'd never read the comic and just seen the film, as it's a far better product than the original, and lengthening it by a few hours would have allowed all the stupid emotional shit to drip in. And besides, haven't you people seen Wright's other stuff? I love the man, but he is -terrible- at those kinds of scenes. OH NO MOM NO MOM.)
If anything, the film really is worth seeing just for the cinematic trickery, if you're into that sort of thing. I'm sure there are movies that would have accomplished the feat better with the budget Wright had, but currently I can't think of any movies with the same sort of literal kinetic flair as here. In other words, imagine that Speed Racer abomination if it had been made by someone with an eye for what the kids like besides trenchcoats. Oh yeah, and most of the performers are pretty good and the soundtrack didn't make me want to kill myself!
Did you notice I said "most?" Eh-yes.
Now, I'm not some horrible movie snob. I know that Cera occupies a certain sphere of movie hyperlink that, once implanted, will more likely than not attract a certain folk who otherwise would not see the movie. But Jesus Christ, I am so sick of him. He is a horrible man who while I do not wish ill toward due to his passive luck in Hollywood being happy in him having the same fucking role over and over and OVER, I also hope something happens that stops making him some ersatz indie darling.
The worst part is that there were better choices here, even if you look at obvious actors. Was Jospeh Gordon-Levitt too busy or something? Fuck, even Zac Efron (I WATCHED SEVENTEEN AGAIN AND FUCK YOU IT WAS KIND OF FUNNY) would have been a better Scott substitute. Again, the movie wasn't totally ruined by Cera's perpetual puberty machine, but part of my brain was constantly muttering about how after I read the first volume, I remarked to myself ,"GEE I WONDER IF MICHAEL CERA WILL GET THIS ROLE" I don't want to get all deeply critical about a fucking fake manga, but the Scott in the comic generally had something of a backbone conflicting with his laziness. Cera's Scott is just an enormous whiny pussy, and part of me suspects that certain omissions and changes to the plot were Wright's attempt to rebalance the story around this new re-characterization of the protagonist.
So, yes. I liked the movie, albeit as a distraction from the crushing conga line life, even moreso than the comic.
Other random musings, some vaguely spoilery:
1) HOW IS M. NIGHT STILL ABLE TO GET MOVIES. I also am not understanding that for a movie about a demon on an elevator, he did not call it HELLIVATOR. Oh wait, I do know, M. Night is a humorless prick who still thinks people take him seriously.
2) Am I the only one who was a little unnerved how Wright focused on Wallace's promiscuity? The comics certainly contained their fair share of references, but the movie possibly had more HEY LOOK THE GAY GUY IS KIND OF A SLUTTY SLUT. Still, it's better than how gay people are treated in most movies of this type (that being a magical creature that solves all problems of the heteros).
3) Possibly the only good thing at having Cera as the main character: Ann Veal as the evil lesbian ex-girlfriend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
