We are all over the map this time. Action movie with A-List actors and big explosions...check. Successful horror movie that is bound to be a franchise...check. Low budget British mystery/thriller with accents so thick subtitles are required...got it. Differing opinions on one or more of today's movies...you betcha'! Picture of Burt Reynolds laying naked on a bearskin rug...er...sure thing. Anything for our 2 fans.
Drew and I pride ourselves on tying the two films in our podcasts together even with the most tenuous parallels. Mud is an "Indie" film about two young boys living on a river (presumably the Mississippi) in Arkansas who stumble upon a fugitive named Mud living in a deserted boat in the woods. Mud claims his crime was one of passion, to defend the woman he loves, and implores the boys to help him escape his predicament.
This is the End, meanwhile, is a rollicking, often vulgar comedy about the end of the world starring a bunch of fairly well-know to not-so-well-known actors playing themselves.
Are they both side-splittingly funny? Are they both about the power of love? Do they both have great performances from Jonah Hill? Guess you'll just have to listen.
Here is a short episode about the upcoming film Now You See Me. Perhaps I spend too much time talking about how terrible the audience was, but the episode is only like 6 minutes longs, so I think you can suffer through.
Tired of how we are always talking about movies that people have heard of? Well this episode is just for you. How unknown are these movies? Ryan and I saw Aftershock on opening weekend, and during that weekend it made $40,000 total. Just how little is that for a movie to make? Well that same weekend, Silver Linings Playbook, having been released six months before, and and having already been released on blu ray and dvd two weeks before, still managed to make three times as much as Aftershock that weekend. We work tirelessly to find you the real hidden gems. You're welcome. John Dies at the End...well...what can I say about a movie like this? It really just needs to be experienced. I just don't have the words right now, and yet somehow we thought it would make a perfect movie to talk about while we drink and record it for all of you. I'm sorry.
It may be a few months in to 2013, but never too late for a best of 2012 list. Did I put Wes Anderson's newest film, "Moonrise Kingdom" on my list? Did Drew put "Frankenweenie" and "Battleship" on his? Guess you'll just have to listen to find out...
Starring: Christopher Denham, Nicole Vicius, Brit Marling Directed by: Zal Batmanglij
I remember the first time I saw the trailer for Melancholia, I thought, “Looks like an interesting concept for a low-key sci-fi film. And then, I remember seeing a trailer for Another Earth and thinking, “Damn, seems a lot like the concept for Melancholia.” I was so wrong on so many levels.
But that’s another conversation for another time. What’s important is that my initial curiosity for Melancholia piqued my curiosity for Another Earth. I ended up seeing Another Earth way before Melancholia and loved it. A scant year after Another Earth was released, Sound of My Voice came out. And while the film certainly didn’t share the same plot threads as the other two films, it still gave off an eerily similar vibe; science fiction-y, low-key, ambient, atmospheric, and, once again, starring Brit Marling.
The story revolves around journalist Peter Aitken (Christopher Denham), a fledgling journalist trying to get a big break by infiltrating an underground cult with the help of his girlfriend Lorna Michaelson (Nicole Vicius).
Getting to the cult meetings involves thorough showering, dressing in white gowns, strange meeting places, blindfolded van rides, and some of the most intricate secret handshakes known to man. The cult leader, Maggie (Brit Marling) claims she woke up one day in a tub in an abandoned apartment where she had been magically transported from the future. The year 2054, to be exact.
She promises that she will take them back with her if they all jump through the many hoops she puts in front of them, including blind faith in her extraordinary claims, eating and regurgitating fruit, days of starvation, and eating worms. Just to name a few.
As the time to make the journey to 2054 comes nearer and nearer Peter and Lorna start to wonder about each other, adding an interesting layer to the film. Each of them, at one point or another, believes the other may actually be falling under Maggie’s spell. And all of this, of course, is shrouded in mystery. IS she telling the truth? IS she making it all up for some more sinister reason?
I enjoyed this film on a number of levels. First off, I like Brit Marling, although I could see how some might not. She is an interesting actress. In both films she plays a similar character; a somewhat lethargic, doe-eyed lead who, despite her languor, still manages to be enigmatically charismatic. In that way, in particular, she is the perfect lead for the film.
In addition to excellent casting, the film works well on a number of other levels. The way Peter sometimes seems to lead Lorna parallels the way Maggie leads the cult. Peter, who starts out the most incredulous of the group, is often times seen wearing a gown that is a slightly different shade than the rest of the group. A nice color scheme to reflect his skepticism.
The dialogue. While some of it does seem ridiculous, one must suspend their disbelief to some degree. For example, the idea behind eating and then regurgitating the fruit -- that they were purging themselves of previous wrongs done by them and to them in order to purify themselves – seems a little silly, especially since it just HAPPENS to coincide with the day that Peter ingests a tiny microphone so he can get audio of the cult. Mmmmm….contrived.
But, then again, it is a cult, and I would rather the filmmakers take a stab at creating a personality rather than what I saw in the woefully overrated Martha Marcy May Marlene where the main reason we seemed to be given as to why the members were wooed to joining was because the leader (John Hawkes) knew how to play guitar.
By and large, though, the script is well written, dialogue and all. There are a lot of loose ends at the end of the film, A LOT, but the film is short, under 90 minutes, and I enjoyed it enough I would consider watching it again to see if I could piece the puzzle together.
Written by Ryan Venson
It's getting near Christmas, so we though not only would we finally record a new podcast, our gift to you, but that we would also fill it with seasonal films. Which is exactly why we reviewed Looper -- a futuristic, time-travelling sci-fi film about hitmen hired to kill their future selves -- and Killing Them Softly -- a gritty, violent, hard-hitting picture centered around a New Orleans mob.So pull up a chair, warm your chestnuts, and spike your egg-nog! Christmas season is here!
Starring: Brian Backer, Brian Matthews Directed by: Tony Maylam
Many times when there are two films out with similar plots people will take it upon themselves to tout the lesser known film as the better film, sometimes simply because it is lesser known. This will happen a lot with remakes, in particular remakes of foreign films. The perfect example of this is The Ring and its Japanese counterpart, Ringu.
I, like most people in the United States, saw The Ring first. I loved it. I felt it had great direction, I loved the feel of the film and, even though I thought it dragged on a bit long interjecting too many false endings, it was a horror film I felt valued suspense and mood over blood and gore.
Individuals on the internet -- sometimes reflected through reviews on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, sometimes on horror movie-centric message boards -- seemed to hold the original in higher regard. So I rented it (yes, I rented it from Hollywood Video…..not only during a time when video stores were still prevalent, but also in a time when dial-up modems were as well). I was totally underwhelmed.
It has probably been about a decade since I saw Ringu, so my recollection of why I disliked it has been muddied by the sands of time, but I didn’t think it was as captivating as the American version. I remember thinking it seemed more like the people hyping it wanted to be in some sort of exclusive club. “Yeah, you may have seen The Ring, but have you seen Ringu? Oh, you didn’t even now it was a remake? Just like the ignorant movie going public, to seek out the inferior American product. Can’t hold a match to the original.”
Ringu wasn’t terrible, it just seemed the gap between the two was small enough that decrying the American version as inferior seemed contemptuous for the sake of it. This is a reoccurring pattern and seems especially true with lesser known films, causing others who don’t like the smaller film to throw out terms like “elitist” and “pretentious.” Maybe that’s true…the feeling of having found something everybody else has overlooked and then trying to introduce it to the public can be exhilarating, despite how truly superior the film may or may not be. How do you quantify a “better” film anyway? Beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
I’m getting really long-winded trying to make a simple point about the b-movie slasher, The Burning: It blows. Bad.
Most of the time when people gripe about two films with similar plots it is because they were released during a short time period. Some group will then, inevitably, take it upon themselves to tout the one that came out marginally earlier and, usually, the less popular one, as being the better film. Maybe even touting it as a “trendsetter” (see The Blair Witch Project and The Last Broadcast), in particular if it also has a smaller budget. As mentioned before, folks will also go on about how much better an original is than a remake, especially if the original is not well known.
The weird thing about The Burning is it came well after Friday the 13th, cost THREE TIMES as much, and is trying so hard to capitalize on the popularity of the former that it should be an embarrassment for all involved. The antagonist is a slasher with a knife (well, actually, a giant pair of shears), it’s set near a lake, it’s a revenge story, it’s filled with horny teenagers, it takes place at a camp.
Yet it is SO DULL. The first murder occurs FIFTY MINUTES in to the ninety-minute long film, and it is a truly generic shot of a slashed neck. About ten minutes later our villain pops out of a boat to ambush some campers on a raft, and dispatches a large group. There’s some “so bad they’re good” SFX here, but nothing especially interesting. Since our baddie uses a large pair of gardening sheers, most die by a stab in the gut or a slit to the neck, although one fellow does get his fingers lopped off in a particularly humorous manner.
The antagonist in our film is a janitor who was severely burned by a group of campers five years prior. This makes him angry with “campers.” So he’s gonna go kill some. Mmm. Now I’m PRAYING for the half-assed expositional tripe I usually receive from a John Carpenter film.
Neither Friday or The Burning are particularly well made films, but there is no way anybody in the world is claiming the technical aspects of The Burning are what make it better. By and large it is totally devoid of suspense, its script is pretty much completely stolen, I don’t even remember what the soundtrack was like. Not to mention the kills come way too late in the film, are all completely forgettable and, infeasible though it may seem, the characters are even more two-dimensional.
The climax of the film is utterly tedious as well. We have two “heroes.” Alfred, a whiny peeping tom who we are cheering to get killed in the final scene, and Todd, a camp counselor who turns out to be one of the original campers who burned the janitor five years earlier. I was cheering for him to get killed as well so maybe the film could have some spark of originality. Alas, despite my hopes and dreams the dynamic duo clumsily dispatches our antagonist, despite the fact he owns not only the element of surprise but also a flamethrower.
I guess, what I’m trying to say here, is sometimes the lesser known film isn’t necessarily a diamond in the rough. It’s hard to say Friday the 13th, from a quality standpoint, is heads and tails better than The Burning, but at least it has the good grace to not to be unrelentingly boring. Perhaps the barometer of how truly terrible this film is can be illustrated by the one recognizable actor in the cast. Halloween = Jamie Lee Curtis , Nightmare on Elm Street = Johnny Depp , Friday the 13th = Kevin Bacon, The Burning = Jason Alexander.
Make of it what you will.
Written by Ryan Venson
So finishes my triumvirate of early 80s slasher reviews. If you missed one, you can start here with my take on Friday the 13th, and here for my take on the original Halloween. I know, not very timely....
Starring: Frank Langella, Robot Directed by: Jake Schreier
I’m not a big fan of movies about old people. I’ve never been one to sit down and watch On Golden Pond, I wasn’t rushing out to see The Bucket List. Hell, I’ve never even seen Cocoon, and it has Steve Guttenberg in it!
I guess, maybe, when I become a senior citizen and start to have paralyzing depression while ruminating about lost loved ones or my usefulness in society, those sorts of films might draw me in. At my current age they just don’t have a lot of appeal to me.
So it was on a whim I went to see Robot & Frank, a film set in the near future about a senior citizen, Frank (Frank Langella), with Alzheimer’s who gets a robot caretaker known simply as Robot (voiced by Peter Sarsgaard).
Frank and his wife are divorced but they have two children, Madison (Liv Tyler), who is off with a Peace Corps-type group trying to save the world one third world country at a time, and Hunter (James Marsden), who seems a bit more pragmatic. Madison constantly harangues her older (or possibly younger…it’s completely irrelevant) brother to make sure he keeps an eye on their father.
Hunter is at his wit’s end with dear old dad. Sometimes Frank remembers Hunter, sometimes he doesn’t. On top of that, it’s a five hour drive from Hunter’s to Frank’s, and Hunter has his own life as an attorney with a wife and children. He feels he has two choices: Put Frank in a home or get him a robot caretaker to help take care of him.
While this seems like the perfect set-up for the exact same sort of melodramatic nonsense I currently have no stomach for – ah, poor Frank, confused and alone, finally finds a friend in a mechanical companion – this movie comes with an interesting twist. See, Frank is an ex-convict and former cat burglar. While he is at first cold towards the robot, he soon warms up when he hatches a plan to pull off one more robbery with the help of his automated companion.
This is, primarily, why I enjoyed Robot & Frank. There is such an obvious, and easy, tearjerker to make here, a film about a lonely, sick man who can only find solace in the one person that truly understands him…and he happens to not be a person at all. But, by and large, the filmmakers stray away from that angle, instead creating a sort of lo-fi buddy comedy.
This isn’t to say there isn’t some melancholy in the film, and I wouldn’t expect it be devoid of emotion, as it does deal with a serious illness, but these aspects are dealt with naturally. Reflected subtly in the way Frank deals with both his robot and his family members, as well as the world around him. It isn’t rammed down our throats with withering shots of family members weeping over forever forgotten memories.
Every aspect of the film doesn’t work perfectly. In particular, one of Frank’s marks, Jake (Jeremy Strong) gets suspicious of Frank and has local constable Rowlings (Jeremy Sisto) check him out. While the original introduction of Jake makes for some rich humor – Jake’s rich, uber-hipster-ish demeanor juxtaposing wildly with Frank’s gruff, old school ex-convict personality – it eventually devolves in to a sort of slapstick keystone cops routine while the duo try and catch Frank red-handed.
Still, the film is one worth seeing if it comes your way. It’s heartfelt but never cloying, and while the idea of conceivably ever having to deal with as debilitating a disease as Alzheimer’s may have you shedding a few tears, the film never panders for them. It mixes humor and grief without employing the sledge hammer, and is the better for it.
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Conchita Alonso, Richard Dawson Directed by: Paul Michael Glaser
Since my wife has taken up movie reviewing, she has been a lot more open to watching films I recommend. Accordingly, I have spent the last few months trying to cram as many pieces of cinema down her throat as possible. This has, by pure coincidence, translated in to a glut of late-80s/early-90s drivel. This trend started when I decided I wanted to watch The Running Man. The real reason for this was to celebrate the life/mourn the passing of one Mr. Richard Dawson.
My sole familiarity of Mr. Dawson’s oeuvre lay completely in his work on Family Feud and the Match Game. I had never (and have still never) in my entire life seen an episode of Hogan’s Heroes. I don’t think it would be any stretch to say, at the time of The Running Man’s release, I wasn’t even aware the show Hogan’s Heroes existed. Believe it or not, at 10 years old, situation comedies about World War II just didn’t appeal to me.
But a full-length live-action movie pitting Arnold Schwarzenegger against a bevy of comic book-like supervillians in brawls to the death? Aces.
Arnold plays Ben Richards, a man framed and wrongly convicted of the massacre of a group of food rioters. Apparently, by 2017 America will be a totalitarian police state, and they don’t like spreading the wealth. Obama better get on some oppressive legislation, because we are WAY behind schedule on that shit.
The film starts with Richards busting out of a labor camp with a couple of fellow jail birds, Laughlin and Weiss (Yaphett Koto and Marvin McIntyre). They all head down to the local “Resistance” camp (you can’t have a proper authoritarian government without some easy to identify malcontents). Laughlin and Weiss join the resistance movement and Richards heads to meet his brother, who he claims can get him out of the country.
When he reaches his brother’s apartment, however, he finds it inhabited by our fiery/sexy/Latin female lead, Amber Mendez (Maria Conchita Alonso). In an attempt to stay his course, Richards kidnaps Amber and forces her to buy him a plane ticket, “disguising” himself brilliantly in a Hawaiian t-shirt and a pair of sunglasses. Oh, and a Panama Jack hat. Ah, a future totalitarian police state where a man convicted of massacring 1,500 innocent food rioters and escaping from prison can don an ugly shirt and get on a plane unhindered. To the future!
Unfortunately for Richards he didn’t have the foresight to think that, once in the airport, his hostage may do something like scream, “Hey, police, help!” Which is exactly what occurs.
Instead of sending Richards back in to a forced labor camp, they send him to Damon Killian (Richard Dawson) who hosts a “game show” where ex-cons are thrown in to an underground gauntlet and unceasingly harangued by the aforementioned supervillians called “stalkers.” If they win they get their freedom, if they lose, well, they’re dead.
Of course it wouldn’t be any fun if it was just Richards running through the gauntlet, so Killian surprises Richards by throwing in his buddies Laughlin and Weiss, and throws Amber in for good measure under the guise that she was helping him escape.
The Running Man, which is based on a Stephen King short I have never read and, from what I’ve heard, based VERY loosely, is pure, unadulterated cheese. Arnie kills the stalkers and slings one-liners like it’s his job (which, I guess, it is). For example, after cutting a man in half with a chainsaw he proclaims “He had to split!”
Classic.
There’s a sub plot about shutting down the oppressive government by finding their 24-hour forced “newsfeed uplink.” Which, of course, they have in plain site on the gaming grounds where they shove in convicted felons once a week. What a great spot to hide the brainwashing mechanism by which you control the people. Really, the whole sub plot is forced, only included because it gives the protagonists something heroic to work towards. Heroes can only perpetrate so much mindless violence and still be heroes.
It seems weird that a game show host should be the face of a totalitarian government, but that’s pretty much how they paint it here. I mean, the guy has to make money right? Regardless, Dawson plays a smug, smarmy arrogant character. I remember both then, and now, being surprised at how well he pulls the character off. I had just assumed he was hired because he was also, in real life, a game show host. But, then again, I’ve watched enough episodes of Family Feud to know the man did have a self-assured, in-your-face sense of humor. Fine piece of casting.
The movie holds up pretty well. It’s ridiculous and cheesy, but it’s FUN, like a lot of Schwarzenegger’s films. The end is a little overly-dramatic; you would think they destroyed the totalitarian government and reinstated democracy, but all they really did was shut down a game show. I’m not sure that reverses years of oppressive government but, then again, they did also shut down that pesky news feed!
I considered downloading and reviewing the Commodore 64 version of The Running Man, but I’ve never really stumbled upon a really user-friendly C64 emulator. So if you want you can watch the longplay here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DUtlEyp5_U
Trust me, it’s awesome.
Written by Ryan Venson
Is the new Total Recall better than the original? I don't know that I would call it better, but it was certainly a lot less fun, and there was a lot less action...or at least the action was a lot more boring. Yeah, I am pretty sure the new version doesn't come close, but take a few minutes and listen to the full review.
Could The Dark Knight Rises really ever be the movie that everyone wanted it to be? All Nolan would have to do would be to make not only the greatest comic book movie of all time, but maybe one of the best movies in general. Well I hate to spoil things for you, but TDKR did not outdo it's predecessor, or perhaps it is even the worst of the bunch...at least to one of us. Then we thought it was a good idea to watch Lockout. I have never shared the same dislike for the French that many Americans seem to have, but if this is the kind of films they are going to make, I may jump on the wagon. To be fair, I also blame Patrick Morris, who told me it was soooo good! Patty also suggested I watch Running Scared, which I also talk about in this show.
Damn you Pat!!!
Or instead of ever watching Lockout, watch this trailer instead. We both think it looks pretty awesome.
You may not see the connection, but I believe these two movie share a common thread. To many people, Spiderman and the newest film by Wes Anderson seems like just more of the same thing that we've seen before. It would be easy to dismiss either film based on that assumption, but would you be missing out on the best example in both line of films? I guess you will just have to listen to what we have to say, ignore what we say, and make up your own mind.
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Miranda Richardson Directed by: David Cronenberg
Cronenberg, as a director, has intrigued me as of late. Stylistically I almost always enjoy his films, but his choice of scripts has been hit or miss for me. The first film of his I ever saw was The Fly, but when I was very young. The first film of his I saw after becoming really interested in film was History of Violence. And I didn’t really care for it. Same with Eastern Promises.
The problem for both of these, I believe, was high expectations. Not only were they both extremely well received by critics, but both also saw Academy Award Nominations. In particular, after watching History of Violence I was aghast that William Hurt, who was in the movie for about five minutes and did nothing more than grow a goatee and overact, was nominated for best supporting actor.
I don’t want to get too far down that road though. Maybe reviews for those films some other time. I do want to briefly mention I absolutely love Videodrome, and recently revisited The Fly and found it quite enjoyable as well. So when Spider was mailed to my front door, I didn’t know what to expect. Cronenberg had, to this point, been a mixed bag.
Safe to say that trend continues.
Spider is a film about a recently released mental patient named Dennis Cleg (Ralph Fiennes), whose nickname is Spider. Apparently he is released to some sort of halfway house, where he gets his own room and a new steward, Mrs. Wilkinson (Lynn Redgrave).
A lot of the film is spent in Spider’s past, as he tries to piece together his childhood memories. As they come to him he scrawls illegible symbols in a notebook he carries with him everywhere. His mother (Miranda Richardson) is remembered as a perfect angel, beautiful and protective. His father (Gabriel Byrne) is remembered as a drunken sod, overly stern with no real motivation to do any work, and little love or faithfulness for his wife. And, eventually, his step-mother (Alison Egan and Miranda Richardson) is seen as similar to his father; an unloving, uncaring, drunken tart.
The entire film, both past and present, is seen almost entirely through Spider’s point of view. Miranda Richardson is wonderful in the film playing, at one point or another, all three of the main female leads as seen through the fractured psyche of Spider. Gabriel Byrne also has a solid turn as Mr. Cleg, although Spider remembers him mostly as an uncaring, unsympathetic figure.
There are two “surprises” in the film. The first I didn’t see coming, but is necessary so the second may eventually be revealed. The second “surprise,” however, wasn’t a very big surprise at all. And I became a little confused here, because it feels like it is supposed to be a revelation, but I’m also not sure it’s supposed to be. If you are paying any attention to the film at all, they practically explain away the final scene before it occurs. This is fine, as not every film is not in need of a twist ending. The problem is, without a twist ending, this particular film feels a little flat.
Cronenberg is a great director, no doubt about it, and the film looks fantastic. Drab and dark to reflect the desolate world in which Spider resides. But the pacing is infuriatingly slow. A lot of this has to do with the character of Spider. There is an understanding he is a recently released mental patient, but he doesn’t really talk, he shuffles around laboriously, he wails and cries a lot, and he spends long amounts of time writing incoherently in a journal. This makes trying to find a reason to pay attention in scenes where he is on the screen alone a questionable use of time.
If the final scene in the film is not meant as a “gotcha!” then perhaps the script should be a little more involved, and the lead character a little more engrossing. If the final scene in the film is meant as such, then probably the script writers should have buried the clues a little deeper. I feel this film fell between. What promised an interesting look into the reasons behind Spider’s mental breakdown turned instead in to a tedious affair where the end question (“Was he just crazy all along?”) should have been shrouded in mystery, leaving a haunting feeling after you’ve turned off your television. Instead it is explained almost completely and absolutely, which doesn’t fit the feel of the film at all.
Written by Ryan Venson
A lot of revelations in this podcast, in particular Drew admits John Carter wasn't as bad as he though it would be (although it is hard to be disappointed by a film like John Carter when your expectations are so low). And speaking of expectations, Prometheus didn't meet either of ours, although we did delight in Fassbender's turn as a mostly malevolent android. But the podcast also leaves a lot of questions hanging. Who are the "engineers" in Prometheus? Did they have some greater plan in mind? Who's a better actor, Taylor Kitsch or Noomi Rapace? Why are so many of the "martians" just humans in different colored capes? And, even though it was written a 100 years ago, couldn't Carter's "super power" be more exciting than jumping real high?
Starring: Geena Davis, Samuel L. Jackson Directed by: Renny Harlin
You know those 3-4 packs of movies you see at Target (or Wal-Mart…..but I don’t like to go there. The foyer always smells a little bit too much like hobo) that you pick up and there is always one stinker in there, making the price not as good as it seems? Like Big, The Princess Bride, and…..Nim’s Island? Or Commando, Predator, and……Aliens Vs. Predator? Schwarzenegger has a dozen great cult classics, why do you have to throw a complete dud in there? I mean, Hellraiser 4, Hellraiser 5, Hellraiser 6, and Hellraiser 7?! I think we all know where the weak link is there…………
Which is why it was quite a surprise when I came to find a 3-pack at Target that didn’t have a single miss. A Samuel L. Jackson 3-pack. The Long Kiss Goodnight, Deep Blue Sea, and Snakes on a Plane. A dream come true. And I watched each and every one of these over my recent vacation weekend in Evansville. No reason, I suppose, not to just review these chronologically, which puts The Long Kiss Goodnight first.
Samantha Caine (Geena Davis) is a wife, parent, and teacher who has been suffering from amnesia for the past eight years. After a car wreck Caine starts to display an odd skill set. Deadly accuracy with a knife, an adeptness at hand- b to-hand fighting, even the ability to knock out a mysterious intruder. And also break his neck.
Mitch Henessey (Samuel L. Jackson), meanwhile, is a private investigator hired to find information on Mrs. Caine. After an old suitcase once belonging to Caine is found in an old boarding house, Henessey goes to deliver the goods to her. Inside an address and phone number are found, and Henessey and Caine set off to try and uncover more of her past.
After contacting the man indicated on the newly discovered evidence, Nathan Waldman (Brian Cox), a meeting is set up at a nearby train station. Of course nothing goes as planned, and after a series of events involving a gun fight, grenades, and a blind plunge out of a third-story window, Henessey and Caine eventually meet up with Waldman, who tries to convince Caine she is actually Charly Baltimore, a CIA operative dealing mostly in assassinations. Henessey and Caine both think he is either A.) Crazy or B.) Somehow trying to set her up.
Eventually, as is the case with this sort of film, we find that somebody working with their own set of motives is worried Caine or, rather, Baltimore, might have knowledge of an operation that they don’t want her to have and, accordingly, need to shut her up. As the danger for Caine increases, her previous ego of Baltimore starts to reflexively emerge until, after a particularly brutal bit of torturing, she completely remembers her past life.
Despite treading a bit of familiar territory, The Long Kiss Goodnight is a solid entry in the action genre. Nothing here is groundbreaking, but the script is above average and bolstered by strong performances from both Davis and Jackson. Davis goes from frumpy housewife to sexy assassin remarkably well. While Jackson’s main focus here is comic relief, it is better scripted than most. We aren’t subjected to a set of obvious jokes and cheesy one-liners. Jackson’s humor comes from his demeanor, as well as the interplay between him and Davis.
While watching I couldn’t help but think about the similarities between The Long Kiss Goodnight and Die Hard 2. Both take place around Christmas, have scenes filled with snow, a lone vigilante against unrealistic odds where the villains seem incapable of even vaguely aiming the automatic guns they are all toting, scenes with snowmobiles, and both Geena Davis and Bruce Willis look surprisingly good as blondes. Wait, maybe that was The Fifth Element. It’s hard to say. I haven’t seen either of those films in a long, long time.
Renny Harlin did, however, direct both films, so there’s probably a reason they sort of feel the same. Which is a perfect way to segue in to the next film on the list, one which shares a star (Sam Jack), a director (Mr. Harlin) and a hot blonde (Thomas Jane).
Deep Blue Sea review at http://inthequeuereviews.wordpress.com/.
Written by Ryan Venson
Starring: Mark Duplass, Katie Aselton, Rhett Wilkins Directed by: Mark Duplass, Jay Duplass
I don’t watch romantic comedies. I simply don’t like them. I usually find them formulaic and schmaltzy, and very, very, very predictable. Being an underrepresented genre in my movie viewing, I decided it might be time to take in one or two. So it was I came to decide on “The Puffy Chair.”
This was mainly because it was written and directed by brothers Mark and Jay Duplass. Jay is more of a behind the scenes fellow, but I had become familiar with Mark as star of the overlooked FX comedy “The League,” and figured if I was going to give a “rom-com” a try, might as well go with someone’s work I enjoy, at least.
Duplass plays Josh, a wannabe musician who has been relegated to a minor booking agent. The movie opens with Josh having dinner with his girlfriend, Emily (Katie Aselton). He is preparing to go on a trip from New York to Georgia for his father’s birthday. Along the way he means to stop and pick up a vintage chair he purchased off EBAY (oh, my bad, EBUY) just like the one his father owned when he was a child. He is also to stop and visit with his brother Rhett (Rhett Wilkins). During the dinner Emily and Josh have an argument, and to make up for it Josh invites her to come with him on his road trip.
The first stop is to meet Rhett, who has some sort of unorthodox, beatnik, spiritual mojo going on. He talks a lot about the energy in the room, or between people. Also he really likes lizards, apparently. When Josh mentions he’s going to Georgia to see Dad on his birthday, Rhett admits he had forgotten the date, and asks if he can tag along, much to the chagrin of Josh and Emily. Then hilarity and hijinks ensue! This is a regular “You, Me and Dupree!” ROAD TRIP!!
Actually, this is probably the antithesis of that sort of film. Although I have to admit, I haven’t seen “You, Me and Dupree.” I will go so far as to say you would have a greater chance of seeing me drink hot lava straight from an erupting volcano than watching it. Rhett isn’t really introduced to be the over-the-top comedy relief; he’s just another character in the story, one for the other two to play off of in different ways so you can learn more about their personalities.
As a matter of fact, this movie isn’t really a comedy at all. If you are going in thinking it is, you will be sorely disappointed. This is a dramatic look at the relationship between Jay and Emily. You are invited to their petty arguments, their oddball conversation, even their awkward, unbalanced baby talk moments. It looks in to why they are together, if they should stay together and examines how we make those decisions in relationships.
The film flounders, however, when it isn’t focused on the main duo. A few scenes are dull and repetitive, feeling as though they are there just to fill run time. And Duplass’s sparse direction is not going to keep your attention during these downturns.
Fortunately there are a handful of scenes with dialogue so unbelievably well written, reflecting perfectly conversations most all of us have engaged in, that you can forgive the shortcomings of the other parts of the film. Not the kind of overwritten, overly-dramatic drudgery written in something like, say, “The Notebook,” dialogue nobody would ever really, truly utter written specifically to illicit a certain response, most often crying. Rather believably real, gritty, relationship dialogue. I swear I have had some of these conversations before.
Not only is the dialogue eerily familiar to anybody who has been in a troubled relationship, but Duplass and Aselton deliver said dialogue in flawless fashion. They have a great chemistry, probably attributable to their real life marriage.
“The Puffy Chair” is nowhere close to a perfect film, but when it is hitting on all cylinders it is achingly familiar and introspective without having to rely on preposterous stereotypes to get the point across. It’s certainly not for everybody, some would probably describe it as boring at worst and droll at best, but it sets out to make some interesting observations about relationships without cramming the ideas down our throats, and in this it is very successful .
Written by Ryan Venson
I have never been to a comic-con, and I have never really had much desire go. The subject of this film may not appeal to everyone, but the story behind the story is universal. Take 7 minutes and listen to this little review.
Of course everyone in the world will be watching The Avengers, so our opinion is just a drop in the sea of comments about Joss Whedon's crazy successful film. Rather, enjoy learning about the Treat Williams/Joe Piscopo horror/comedy/action/buddy cop film, Dead Heat. Few movies are as bonkers as this one. Remember that time you dropped a few tabs of acid and thought you were being attack by lunch meat? All of that basically happens in Dead Heat, and I dare say that isn't even the weirdest part of the movie. It was the perfect movie to pair with one of the biggest movies of the year. Which of the two movies were better? I guess you'll just have to listen to the show. ...The Avengers was better.
What? Two podcasts in one week? I know, your dreams have finally come true. And what a podcast this one happens to be. The Whedon/Goddard penned (and long shelved) Cabin in the Woods, and the highly overlooked...............horror? film, BIRDEMIC. Shudder in terror as "eagles" dive bomb unwitting townsfolk. Laugh as a man is attacked by a unicorn. Cower as Alan Bagh delivers each and every line of dialogue. It's all here friends, all here.