Category Archives: movies

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Retelling the Story of ‘Dracula Untold’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613If I never had to watch another vampire movie again, I would be a happy man.

Not that I’m generally forced to watch vampire films. In fact, I generally avoid them, as they’re about monsters that, as a rule, don’t inspire me – unlike, say, snarky, misanthropic, hobbit-hating dragons, which often do.

I have to say something about Dracula Untold, the upcoming fang-o-thon slated to hit theaters next month, however, and that is: Do we really need another movie about these long-lived bloodsuckers? Really? I mean, come on. This is the umpth incarnation of the Dracula story. Why, Hollywood, why?

Vampires, like zombies, are easy subjects. You’ll always find an audience for flicks concerning them, methinks. I just wish horror/fantasy moviemakers would mine less superficial subject matter, though, instead of gravitating toward the same ol’ thing. It’s hard to top the F.W. Murnau Nosferatu when it comes to vampire stories on the big screen, anyway, you know? So why try?

I suspect there will be no reason to tell, again, the story of Dracula Untold and that it will be comparable, in terms of cinematic quality, to a pile of bat guano. That probably won’t stop the hordes of vampire-loving viewers from seeing it. It will, though, serve as sufficiently preventative garlic for me. I’m avoiding it … while lamenting the dearth of good, non-vampire horror films out there.

Dracula Untold? Too many times told, if you ask me.

Skip’s Quips: ‘Bad Words’ Dials ‘O’ for ‘Obnoxious’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I sure wish the movie Bad Words was a lot funnier.

It wasn’t horrible. In fact, it was eminently watchable, this story of an obnoxious 40-year-old no-goodnik out to prove himself on the children’s spelling-bee circuit. But it felt like a lot of humor was either left on the cutting-room floor or forgotten. The movie tried so hard to be outrageous that it lost out on a lot of laughs.

Director and star Jason Bateman steered the flick with more assuredness than I expected, and the cinematography had an interesting washed-out quality. Still, there was something unsatisfying about this picture, as if it was attempting to be two things at once: a broad comedy and a sensitive drama delving into the protagonist’s background.

I think the film took some easy routes. It’s hard to be funny. Perhaps the thought process was that the wackiness of the plot would generate laughs on its own. It didn’t, though. So in that regard, the movie misfired.

Oh, well. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I’m sure Bateman will try for more success with other projects. Bad Words is definitely one to learn from.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Ah, ‘Commando,’ How I Missed Ya

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Sometimes being away from a movie for a long time inspires nostalgia. Sometimes it makes you like the movie more.

I kinda felt that way about Commando, the ridiculous, absurdly high-body-count 1985 “action” film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as human tank John Matrix. This is a junky picture, with all-too-quick editing, poor cinematography and a script that can euphemistically be said to need work. Plus, it’s bloody as all hell, with a ludicrous amount of violence as Matrix kills baddies while searching for his daughter.

Yet for some reason, despite all of these faults, I dig the movie. It’s a guilty pleasure. You can watch it while using your smartphone or doing the dishes. You can go to the bathroom without stopping it and not feel like you’ve missed anything. It’s the perfect thing to put on when you’re just casually viewing.

Which I was doing last night. I didn’t feel like seeing a quality picture. I wanted something crummy. And I hadn’t seen Commando in a long time, so yesterday was a good day to watch it. I know: This is coming from someone who loves Kurosawa and all kinds of high-falutin’ pictures, so what gives? All I can say is that sometimes I have to slum a little. I don’t do it all the time. It’s reserved for special occasions.

This was one of them. So Commando, thanks for the evening. And as John Matrix might say: “Grunt.”

Skip’s Quips: Je Refuse … to Watch ‘The Boxtrolls’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Gosh, The Boxtrolls looks horrible.

Saw a preview for it recently. Not funny. OK, maybe the funny bits were cut out of the trailer. But wait a second … aren’t the trailers supposed to include the funny bits? You know, to make people wanna see the movie?

The lack of humor in the preview suggests to me that the film is going to be a dud. Yes, I’ve been wrong plenty of times before. Yes, the trailers aren’t always a foolproof way of determining the worth of a picture. But for some reason, this rubs me the wrong way.

It has to do, to a certain extent, with the dearth of good children’s movies out there today. Kids’ fare is often loud, cartoony, with flashy visuals and little heart. The soul that is instilled into much of the pictures for tykes today is junky, flat, clichéd. I get the feeling that The Boxtrolls isn’t going to be any different. Its splashiness seems superficial. And it won’t hide the fact that the plot is ordinary.

So I’m not going to see it. I already know what it’s going to be like. Sure, you can say that I shouldn’t judge a picture before I see it, but I can tell I won’t enjoy this one. It’s a box I refuse to open. And I’m proud to say I’m doing just that.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Downgrading ‘Easy A’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613When good actors appear in bad movies, I sometimes want to scream at the TV, crying, “Why? Why? Why?”

So it was with Easy A, a horrid film about a high school girl pretending to be a tramp in order to become more popular. In this offense to lovers of quality celluloid everywhere were stalwart actors Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Stanley Tucci and, yes, Malcolm McDowell (playing the principal of the school, no less). Directed by Will Gluck, the picture featured glib, unfunny dialogue masquerading as wit and a host of not credible situations that dragged the flick into a swamp of ludicrous plot developments.

Needless to say, the movie was hard to watch. And I stopped doing so after the first 30%. Once a film gets that far on the lousiness spectrum, it can’t come back, in my opinion. I’ll refrain from giving Easy A a chance to redeem itself, given such a probability level.

High school movies are not my cup of tea, anyway, but making a good one requires sincerity, not smugness. You can be tongue-in-cheek without featuring smarmy situations and self-conscious dialogue. Easy A, unfortunately, suffered from the latter issues. And that doesn’t make me want to watch more.

Meanwhile, I say unto the talented actors who participated in this mess: “Wherefore art thou making such films? You can do better.”

Alas, there’s no chance that they’ll listen to my pleas. Guess I’ll hafta continue to rant at the empty air, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Skip’s Quips: Having Another Go at ‘Conan the Barbarian’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Why, I asked myself last night, am I watching the original 1982 version of Conan the Barbarian again?

Isn’t once enough for this film? It doesn’t have great cinematography. Much of the acting – except for stalwarts such as James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow – is atrocious. And the special effects are pretty poor by today’s or even yesteryear’s standards.

Oh, yeah: And the blood squibs are gloppy. Really gloppy.

Well, parts of it are watchable, for some reason. I’ve read one of the original Robert E. Howard Conan stories, “The People of the Black Circle,” and the film stays true to the tale’s sensibilities. You know: blood, gore, lust and all that. Plus, there’s the much-lauded score by Basil Poledouris, which is somewhat bombastic but definitely works.

Then there’s the script, courtesy of director John Milius and Oliver Stone. Pretty simple stuff, but at least it’s not verbose and pretentious. I was grateful for that.

There were also a number of seemingly derivative moments that may have been “inspired” by classic films such as Kwaidan (the scene in which the wizard writes runes on Conan’s body to protect him from demons) and The Seven Samurai (the stake-adorned defense against Thulsa Doom’s cohorts). Surprisingly erudite stuff for a film such as this. I did see part of an interview a long time ago in which Milius lauded Kwaidan as being “dreamlike,” so perhaps he was mining that movie for Conan. Nevertheless, it made for strong viewing.

So all in all: kind of a sloppy film, with dull moments and some very good ones. I may end up watching it again in the future and asking myself, once more, why I’m doing so. Hopefully, I’ll be able to answer myself the same way.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Ultimately, ‘Cloudburst’ Disappoints

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Saw the rest of Cloudburst the other night.

Sadly, it declined toward the end as it ventured into forced sentimentality and easy plot lines, including (spoiler alert) the death of one of the protagonists. I don’t care for this sort of thing; it’s a simple, common cinematic tactic and rarely garners the effect it seeks. There also was a quirky funeral involved which, like some of the content I referred to in my previous post, stretched credibility.

This film started off very nicely, with strong dialogue and sharp characters. But, as is the case with so many movies, it fell apart in an effort to be crowd-pleasing. I was hoping that it would stay on its likable path and refuse to be pegged into a hole that fit. Oh, well. Hopefully, the next film I see will be more rewarding.

Skip’s Quips: The Horror of ‘Jud Süß’

~

Blog Sketch 082813Everyone should see the movie Jud Süß.

There’s a reason for that: It’s one of the most horrifying pictures ever made. This is slickly crafted Nazi propaganda, a wartime movie that viciously portrays Jews as evil, conniving monsters out to rape non-Jewish women and destroy others while making oodles of money. I watched this film recently because I believed I needed to see it as part of my cinematic education.

I’m glad I did.

It’s a monument to the tyranny of the Third Reich and extremely disturbing. It also has strong production values and impassioned acting, which contributed to its effectiveness as propaganda. I can only wonder what its impact was when it debuted in Germany to already anti-Semitic audiences. It must’ve been scary.

I don’t think this is a movie that should be seen without context. Instead, it should be shown in museums and schools as part of an educational initiative. No one should forget what atrocities the Nazis committed, and this film is part of its effort to blame the Jews for all kinds of problems. As a Jew, I believe it’s essential to see this movie with the perspective that the Nazi regime used all kinds of tools to convey its vile, racist ideology. Everyone should remember what happened. Watching this picture is a way to do so.

Setter’s ‘Spectives, Part II: Well, I Finished ‘The Lunchbox’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613And it was good. Not a masterpiece. But very well done.

Some might find it slow. I didn’t; I though the pace was perfectly fine. I did, however, feel that it used one particularly loaded line a bit too much; it was something about “the wrong train” getting you to “the right place,” and I think a less heavy-handed application of this would’ve suited the film better. It’s not a deal breaker, however. The movie still worked.

I wonder why it’s so difficult for American movies to take such simple plots – The Lunchbox was about two people connecting via handwritten notes in misplaced lunch deliveries – and pace them in a way that’s both not too fast and not too slow. Of course, there are exceptions, but it seems the slam-bang styles have more of an appeal in this day and age to the general public … that is, if we are to believe what the movie previews tell us.

Anyway, I enjoyed The Lunchbox very much. Maybe it’s not for everyone, but if you’re interested in a laid-back film that deals honestly with people’s problems, it might just be what you’re seeking. It was for me.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: A Taste of ‘The Lunchbox’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I have to write a little about The Lunchbox before I finish it.

It’s really a fine film. I thought I was going to be frustrated with it. Boy, was I wrong.

Watched about a third last night; had to stop it because I was tired. But it was enthralling. Beautiful cinematography. Great sound. And a simple but touching story (two people in Mumbai get their lunchboxes mixed up and start writing notes to each other). I’m hoping to see the rest of it tonight.

It’s further proof that a movie doesn’t have to have a complicated plot or flashy editing to be enjoyable. It can be deliberately paced, like The Lunchbox is. The conflict can be minimal. The characters may be few. And yet, the flick can be as powerful as any one with a cast of thousands.

It only helps that this film, which is tangentially about food, made me hungry. Hopefully, I’ll have at least a bite to eat before I complete it this evening.