Death Proof

imdb page

Death Proof was originally shown in theaters as one half of the Quentin Tarantino 'Grind House' double bill, the other half being Planet Terror. The two movies were released as separate DVDs, though there is a planned 'Grind House' special edition release coming soon. I wasn't able to catch this during its theatrical run so I had to settle for viewing the DVD.

This film was shot B-movie style, with grainy film quality, skips, and even an occasional blooper thrown in. It's supposed to have the effect of going to a delapidated movie house showing old, low budget films. It reminded me back when I was in high school and college, where I wouldn't be too picky about the types of movies I watched, going to poor quality movie theaters to watch rehashed 70's and 80's movies. Most of them weren't good at all, but it was still fun to watch. Death Proof tries to replicate this effect with mixed results.

You get three different picture styles, as well as two sets of female victims. It starts with a rough, grainy, old film look, complete with audio and video skips. This is part with the group of girls led by Vanessa Ferlito. It then shifts to black and white (presumably as we're now on a separate roll of film) when the second group of girls led by Rosario Dawson are introduced. Then there's a very cool effect when the film shifts to color, and you see that the girls' car is actually yellow.

To get to the good parts, you have to bear with a lot of boring conversation by both groups of girls. I found the dialog between the girls very difficult to sit through and got increasingly irritated and bored with the seemingly endless talking. I think this was the intention of Tarantino, to make us so tired of listening to these characters that it would make the action scenes much more interesting by contrast.

We are spared from having to hang out with these unlikable characters once Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) is introduced. Here is a guy we actually like. An old school stuntman from the 70's and 80's. A loner who gets the attention of the only other likable character in the first segment, Rose McGowan, a sweet girl who feels alienated by the slutty, shallow, drug-using group of girls we had to bear with earlier. McGowan is able to hitch a ride with Stuntman Mike after they leave the bar. And this is where the action starts.

In the second segment, we have to bear with another torturously long chit-chat between the Rosario Dawson group of girls. While not as irritating as the first group, they had their own set of unlikable qualities. At this point, I was actually rooting for Stuntman Mike to finish them off. And I think this was the emotion that Tarantino was going for with his audience. For them to root for the bad guy. After all, if you take away the psychotic murderous serial killer side of Stuntman Mike, he's actually a pretty cool guy who you'd like to hang out with and can relate to.

My main complaint with this film is the overly long, boring conversation that takes place not once, but two times, with two different groups of females. Perhaps Tarantino could have found a way to make these parts shorter, while at the same time getting the same intended 'irritation' effect. Or maybe not.

The dialog also feels somewhat contrived, especially with Tracie Thomas' character, Kim. Just too much girl power. Only two girls were likable, the sweet and innocent Rose McGowan, and Lee, the cheerleader (who has a somewhat interesting side story in the end, when she is abandoned by the Spice Girls).

The best parts were the road action parts. These are not your ordinary chase scenes. Most vehicle action scenes in today's movies are spliced together in a way that they don't have the same cohesion, like watching a bewildering sequence of special effects on the road that leave you dizzy. The Death Proof chase scenes appear very genuine, like they were actually taking place, and they tell a good story, with emotional pacing. This is oen of the reasons why Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. You can feel the love, care, and attention to detail that he has for his movies in something as ubiquitous as a high speed car chase scene.

Overall, a very entertaining movie. And I'm eagerly awaiting Planet Terror, the other half of Grind House, when it comes out.

Rating: 4/5 * * * *
A little action with lots of annoying dialog.

Braveheart

imdb page

I consider Braveheart to be the precursor to modern era epic battle movies such as Gladiator, Troy, Alexander, and Lord of the Rings. It was filmed and shown before CGI, or computer-generated imagery became common in movie production.

Due to this, I had tempered my expectations for this film, as I knew the battle scenes were developed without the aid of computers or graphics. Whatever limitations it would have in terms of special effects, I expect it to be made up by a much better story and character development. But it ultimately let me down.

Mel Gibson stars and directs in this movie, which in 1996, won Best Picture and a Best Director award for Gibson. I guess it must have been a very weak year for movies at the time, as I don't get how this won. It's mildly entertaining, and at times even fun to watch, but horribly overrated.

Gibson portrays William Wallace, a thirteenth century Scottish bandit/rebel who fights to free his people from the evil English. This is the film's fatal flaw as I don't find Mel Gibson at all convincing in this role. Wallace is supposed to be this fearsome brute of a man, savage and courageous at the same time. And I just never see these qualities in his acting.

Another complaint of mine is how this movie appears to advertise itself as being based on historical events, yet is terribly inaccurate. I understand that the storytelling needs to be exaggerated and some new parts made up to add entertainment value. But in this case, Braveheart went too far off course.

Even while watching this, I couldn't believe how saintly Wallace was portrayed, I'm pretty sure the real-life figure wasn't at all like this. I'm not even sure if his wife existed, or if the Scots were the good guys, or if King Edward Longshanks was that ruthless. Once you start to doubt whether these events actually happened or not, that's when things start slipping.

Despite these complaints, I confess I found it entertaining at times. Particularly all the scenes with King Edward (Longshanks). I enjoyed the tough guy, kick-ass King character. You can feel his power and ruthlessness. To illustrate just how bad ass this elderly king is, in one of the scenes, he throws his son's male lover out a tower window, and effortlessly beats up his son when he tries to fight back.

The battle scenes were ok but lacked emotion. At times it felt like these were actors going through the motions of fighting. There were also some moments which felt too contrived, such as when the Irish and Scots changed sides. The ending where Wallace seemed to get the upperhand of the King even in defeat was just too precious and made me groan out loud.

This would have been a pretty good lighthearted action flick. It just took itself too seriously.

Rating: 2/5 * *
Overrated Best Picture

The Weather Man

imdb page

Most movies follow fairly predictable plots. You can almost tell what the characters are going to do, what will happen next, and sit smugly knowing that things are going to be resolved, that everything will turn out alright, and that the heroes will be vindicated in the end. The Weather Man is not that type of movie.

In fact, you can't tell what will happen next. It could be good or bad, but in this case, things always get worse. And when you think you finally reached the turning point where things ought to be getting better, guess again. This thing is depressing to watch, but in a good way.

Nicholas Cage is David Spritz - a TV Weather Man. On the surface, it looks like he's doing very well for himself. He's a well known TV personality, has that charm on camera, earns big bucks, gets to have sex with lots of attractive women, and is on target to get a potential six-figure income as the weather guy in the country's number one syndicated morning show, Hello America. He's living the American dream, but there's a problem.

Despite all his successes, his personal life is in shambles. His ex-wife hates him. His kids have no affection for him. He feels like a failure when he compares himself to his father, a world-renowned writer played by Michael Caine. He gets no respect from strangers either, as he is frequently gets fast food and beverages thrown at him on the street. Nobody likes the weather man.

Spritz tries desperately to make things better. He takes his daughter to the company Christmas party, where things go wrong. He takes her out for archery lessons but there's no warmth in their father-daughter relationship. To make things worse, his son is befriended by a pedophile, which Spritz is unaware of. He can't even get things right in his father's "live funeral" (a make-believe funeral you stage with loved ones while the person is alive).

It's like watching a horror movie. I wanted Spritz to win, even just a little. The character is shallow, weak, and oftentimes a jerk, but I found that I still wanted to root for him to succeed. There's a point in the film where he realizes exactly the type of person he is, and I think this is the most powerful point in the movie.

In a way, it's also a film about the modern ills of western society. You can be well off materially, have all the physical comforts, and have all the external trappings of success, yet be very unhappy. One of the dilemmas that Cage's character faces is how his professional success contrasts with his failures in personal life and relationships.

There were some things about this film that I felt were flaws. For one, I couldn't figure out whether Michael Caine's character was british or not. He kind of had a british accent, yet he was supposed to be the father of Nicholas Cage's character who was American. To add to the confusion, Cage's son played by Brit Nicholas Hoult, who was Marcus in About a Boy, also seemed very British. Were Caine and Hoult supposed to be Americans, or were they there to show that Cage's family had some British roots? Though not relevant to the story, it distracted me enough as they just didn't feel as if the three males from different generations were related to one another. Poor casting in my opinion.

Another thing was that I got the impression that this was a comedy, or at least a dark comedy. It's not. In fact I think this plays more like a modern day tragedy. I watched this with the wrong expectations. Perhaps that was the intent of the filmmakers, but it made it more painful to watch for me.

This movie won't make you feel good and will make you probably more depressed after watching it. But I think that's its main purpose. You'll also think of how much your own life either resembles or contrasts with the quiet desperation of David Spritz.

Rating: 3/5 * * *
How are you like the weather man?

Hot Fuzz

imdb: Hot Fuzz

Hot Fuzz is a brilliant and funny film from the makers of Shaun of the Dead. If Shaun of the Dead was a movie about all other zombie films, then Hot Fuzz is a tribute to every cop film made. It has the same director, writers, and two lead actors as Shaun of the Dead.

The plot revolves around a London supercop named Nicholas Angel, played by Simon Pegg, who's so good that he makes his superiors and colleagues look bad in comparison. So he gets assigned to the small, quiet town of Sandford. Here he meets his new partner, Danny, played by Nick Frost, who is Simon Pegg's real life best friend. They also played the part of best buddies in Shaun of the Dead. A couple of people get killed, which is chalked up as 'accidents' by the police chief. Everyone in this town seems so dumb, but things are not what they seem to be.

The first two thirds of the movie contains lots of references to cop movies. There's a scene where Angel visits his partner Danny's apartment and sees his huge DVD collection. They watch some scenes from Point Break and Bad Boys II, and Danny mimics his favorite scene from Point Break, which will be revisited in a later point in the movie. He also pesters Angel about whether he was able to do some of the cop stuff that he has seen from those classic cop films. To which Angel replies that he hasn't done any of those, and dismisses them. Again, this will be revisited in a later point.

The first two thirds is essentially a setup for the climactic last third. A lot of buddy cop movie cliches are thrown in - the amiable police chief, the rival cop team, the good-looking villain, and many others. If you watch a lot of action movies, you'll recognize them all. Then in the last part, all hell breaks lose and all the cliches come to life unexpectedly.

This was an extremely well made film, with great attention to detail. You'll need to watch this closely, or like what I did, watch it twice. As every scene turns out to have some important meaning later on. On my second viewing, I watched this with the commentary on in the DVD, where the director and Simon Pegg reveal a lot of the hidden gems. There's bits of humor sprinkled throughout that will only become apparent on second viewing. For me, the funniest part was the 'Point Break' reenactment near the end.

As you may have heard, this is a British film, but it was made to parody hollywood movie cliches, so the comedy feels very American. The spoofing is also very subtle, unlike what you're used to seeing in movies such as in the Naked Gun, Hotshots, and Scary Movie franchises. This will satisfy all action movie enthusiasts. I would love to see a sequel.

Rating: 4/5 * * * *
Everything you liked in cop movies.

V for Vendetta

imdb: V for Vendetta

This was an odd movie. Somehow I couldn’t put my finger on it. Is it about revenge? Or social revolution? Or a political statement based on current events? I’ve read that the original graphic novel was a reaction to the Thatcher administration. And that the Wachowski brothers (who made The Matrix) wrote the screenplay for this, and simplified and revised the story for the benefit of the viewing audience.

It occurs in the distant future, with the entire story taking place in the UK. The United States has fallen into civil war and is in ruins. A fascist, repressive government has taken over, led by Chancellor Sutler. The government has removed all civil liberties and is bent on enforcing its will on the people through propaganda, government enforcers who goes by the name ‘Fingermen’, and through spying on its own citizens.

The two protagonists is a masked character named ‘V’ and a young female, ‘Evey’ played by Natalie Portman. V is hell bent on revenge and justice as he has been disfigured as a result of being incarcerated by the government. Evey has her own back story, starting out as an innocent citizen, but slowly being drawn into V’s world, eventually playing a major role in his plans.

There is a lot of social commentary in the dialogue, mostly from V. The idea that is repeated throughout the film is that ‘ideas are bulletproof’, and are more powerful than men. He also said a lot of other lines that I thought were interesting, maybe a bit idealistic, a little weird, funny even, but it fits in with his overall character and accomplishes its purpose.

I had the subtitles turned on while watching the DVD as I didn’t want to miss any of the quotes. My favorite is the one when Evey asked V whether he was certain of his plans, and he replied “There is no certainty, only opportunity.” Of all the bits of dialog, this was the one I could relate to the most.

I didn’t exactly agree with how V went about with his plans for overthrowing the government. I felt it was a bit too reckless, a bit too idealistic, and self-serving. He also came across as this goofy character, particular in this one scene where Evey wanted to leave, and he kept saying something like, ‘oh before you go’, and ‘could you do me one favor?’, which came out really weird (I kept thinking, uh oh, I think V wants to have sex with Natalie Portman). I’m not sure if the humor was intended, probably not.

There were also some boring and ridiculous parts, such as the one where the TV host spoofs the Chancellor and plays the Benny Hill music. It felt unfunny and out of place. The priest's acting in the scene with Portman was totally dumb and unrealistic. There was also this part where the lead detective kicks a garbage can in a fit of frustration that felt out of character. Many scenes didn't work at all for me.

The Wachowski brothers are brilliant writers and filmmakers, but when left uncontrolled to their own devices, they occasionally turn out some weird crap such as in Matrix Revolutions and some of the scenes in this film.

Natalie Portman was great in her role, and I think she saved this movie from going over the edge. My friend remarked that he avoided watching V for Vendetta because he didn’t want to see a bald Natalie Portman. But she still looked great with her head shaved! And I think the character fit her perfectly.

There were a couple of plot holes which I can’t list without giving away spoilers. I had some trouble believing what happened in the Evey interrogation/torture segment, and how V had rebuilt the subway train all by himself.

This is not horrible. Maybe even an entertaining movie. And it has some good ideas. It felt very preachy, but I believe this was the intent anyway. It will make you think, which is the important part. It’s the ideal movie to watch with your friends and talk about over starbucks afterwards.

Rating: 3/5 * * *
+1 * for Natalie Portman

(Note: This article describes the differences between the movie and the graphic novel. After reading it, I understood why the movie felt so flawed, at least to me. Contains spoilers. -rob)

Without Warning

'Without Warning' imdb page

I remember back in the 90’s when my father woke me up to tell me that there was this important live news story breaking out. It turned out to be an HBO movie that was pretending to be a real news broadcast. He was in on the joke of course but wanted to see whether I would believe it.

I came in right near the end, having missed most of the breaking ‘news’. I remember thinking to myself ‘wow’ after seeing the ending. At the time I also thought the production values were very good, it looked exactly liked real news a la CNN.

Unfortunately, I could tell right away that it was fake, having recognized the actress playing the news anchor, Jane Kaczmarek, who would later on play Malcolm in the Middle’s sitcom mom. But I didn’t want to ruin the fun, so I played along, making believe it was real.

Fast-forward more than a decade later. I was finally able to watch the movie in its entirety after getting it on DVD. The production values did not look as good, the ‘news’ didn’t look authentic at all, and I even chuckled at some of the bad acting by the reporters and fake witnesses. Worst acting goes to the bar customers, the SETI scientist, and the lead roving reporter.

Now, it could be that the producers were deliberately trying to make the acting bad, just to make sure that no one would actually believe that this was a live broadcast. My analysis is that this could have looked real ten years ago, but watching it again, it looks very dated. Believe it or not, from reading the imdb messageboards, it appears that there are still a lot of people who mistake this fake broadcast to be real. What the?!

The only gem in this one was Jane Kaczmarek’s portrayal of the fake news anchor. She seemed very real, just the way I would expect an anchor to react if these events were actually happening. I found the other anchor to be very unrealistic, despite him being an actual news guy hired to play a fake role. OK, you’ve got what appears to be an alien encounter, an entire town disappearing, and potentially the end of the world, and he reports it like it is just any other news story. Plus his line at the end just felt stupid.

All in all, I still enjoyed it! It reminds me of what is called a ‘shoot angle’ in wrestling, wherein the participants pretend that what is happening is not part of the script, and real life blurs into the storylines (if you’re a dedicated wrestling fan, you’ll know what I mean).

Without Warning is flawed, silly, overacted, and deserves the low rating it gets. But it’s one of the bad movies I liked a lot. I can’t wait for the day where I play this movie in a party, and make believe to the other people that it’s real, pretending to watch while mumbling to myself "Holy..!”, “Shit, what happened?”, and “Oh my God, the aliens are here!”.

Rating: 2/5 * *
What if it actually happened though?