Shoot 'em Up is a cartoon, as deadpan a parody as you'll ever see. Anyone who claims to find any significance to this movie beyond sheer adrenal rush is lying. It really doesn't even have scenes, just one long extended battle with breaks to take a deep breath and (infrequently) reload. It's like half of a good John Woo movie.
What elevates Shoot 'em Up is the presence of Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti as the antagonists. If either of them so much as blinks or grins, the movie will collapse into tiresome, self-congratulatory dreck. Neither of them blink. Owen plays this movie just as straight as he did Children of Men and Giamatti brings as much effort to this project as he did to Sideways and American Splendor. Throw in Monica Belluci as a hooker (Riiiiight; hookers look like Belucci) with a clientele of breast-milk fetishists (are you grinning yet?) and you should know by now whether this is a movie you want to see or not. I personally thought it was one hour and 27 minutes of hoot.
Shoot 'em Up reminded me of The Replacement Killers, Antoine Fuqua's 1999 movie starring Chow Yun-Fat and Mira Sorvino. Chow may have gotten better reviews for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but he will never look more iconic than he did striding through Fuqua's film in a long black leather duster with a 9mm in each hand. He has never found an American vehicle worthy of him, but Chow Yun-Fat is the coolest man in the movies. His sheer magnetism makes a cliche story that's basically a pastiche of John Woo not only watchable, but fun.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Oh Spider-Man, my Spider-Man!
I loved Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. I believe that S-M2 is the best comic-book movie ever. That may not be a crowded field, but it's so far above whatever's in second place that it will be a while before it's lapped. I walked into the theater on a gorgeous Sunday afternoon, expecting to be taken away by Sam Raimi's skillful tightrope act.
What a disappointment.
Spider-Man 3 is bloated where 2 was big, lumbering where the first two were sleek and nimble (especially for huge sfx blockbusters), and corny and sentimental where its predecessors were heartfelt and sincere. It's a serious stumble and the cause is pretty easy to see, at least for me.
Too much. Too much of everything. Three villains, any one of whom could have been the antagonist for a better movie. Too much relationship turmoil. Too much SFX and too many action scenes that seem to be constructed mainly for the purpose of showcasing just how bitchin' are the skills of Sony's DFX crew. Too much spectacle and not enough script.
Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 reaped the benefits of solid screenwriting. 2 enjoyed the input of writers like Miles Millar, Albert Gough, and Michael Chabon. Director Raimi and his brother Ivan handle the story chores this time round and share screenplay credit w/ Alvin Sargent (credits stretching back almost 50 years, including Spider-Man 2). I've already mentioned that there's too much of everything in the movie and that includes the script. Stuffed to bursting, it allows little time for any of its themes or situations to breathe and develop. It feels less like an organic story and more like a shopping list of plot points. Heroic angst? Check. Romantic difficulty? Check.
Let me say plainly that the decision to provide impediment to the love story of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson is one of the story's grave errors. With so much else going on, let the kids have one movie where they're happy together. Heaven knows there's enough else going on in the movie. There'll be plenty of time in later movies to truly explore the difficulties that arise between these two, and to explore them in depth, not as plot complication 7-E. And when you do explore it, do it right; don't shorthand it by introducing Gwen Stacey, one of the most iconic characters in the Spiderverse, and reducing her to a pawn whose sole purpose is to cause Mary Jane to act like an idiot.
That plot thread dovetails with the Venom/Black Spidey subplot to produce one of the most embarrassing sequences ever filmed by Sam Raimi. I'm referring to the homage to/parody of John Travolta's "strut" scene from Saturday Night Fever. I'm at a loss to understand what this scene is supposed to represent. If it's meant to be a serious shorthand/montage of Peter falling under the influence of the dark side, then it's way too arch and campy. If it's supposed to be funny and lighthearted, then it goes on way too long and beats its own joke to death. The culmination at the "jazz club" almost made me crawl under my seat.
You know Spider-Man 3 has gone off the rails when my first reaction to the death of the New Goblin was, "Wow, James Franco really didn't want to come back for 4." Major character death should not turn the audience's thoughts to contractual obligation.
Is the movie a disaster? No. Even with all these flaws, there is so much talent on hand that it's still got some very strong points. Bruce Campbell's cameo is hilarious; Brisco County Jr./Ash Williams breathes life into the movie for a couple of minutes. Topher Grace delivers a light-footed, teasing performance that made me wish they had waited until about number four to introduce Venom. As it is, Grace is there and gone, but his scenes with Maguire exude a spark that seems to come from within the two actors. The effects are spectacular, even when they're overdone. It's not the execution that's lacking here so much as a plan.
Sam, next time, when you think the script is done, give Michael Chabon a call.
What a disappointment.
Spider-Man 3 is bloated where 2 was big, lumbering where the first two were sleek and nimble (especially for huge sfx blockbusters), and corny and sentimental where its predecessors were heartfelt and sincere. It's a serious stumble and the cause is pretty easy to see, at least for me.
Too much. Too much of everything. Three villains, any one of whom could have been the antagonist for a better movie. Too much relationship turmoil. Too much SFX and too many action scenes that seem to be constructed mainly for the purpose of showcasing just how bitchin' are the skills of Sony's DFX crew. Too much spectacle and not enough script.
Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 reaped the benefits of solid screenwriting. 2 enjoyed the input of writers like Miles Millar, Albert Gough, and Michael Chabon. Director Raimi and his brother Ivan handle the story chores this time round and share screenplay credit w/ Alvin Sargent (credits stretching back almost 50 years, including Spider-Man 2). I've already mentioned that there's too much of everything in the movie and that includes the script. Stuffed to bursting, it allows little time for any of its themes or situations to breathe and develop. It feels less like an organic story and more like a shopping list of plot points. Heroic angst? Check. Romantic difficulty? Check.
Let me say plainly that the decision to provide impediment to the love story of Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson is one of the story's grave errors. With so much else going on, let the kids have one movie where they're happy together. Heaven knows there's enough else going on in the movie. There'll be plenty of time in later movies to truly explore the difficulties that arise between these two, and to explore them in depth, not as plot complication 7-E. And when you do explore it, do it right; don't shorthand it by introducing Gwen Stacey, one of the most iconic characters in the Spiderverse, and reducing her to a pawn whose sole purpose is to cause Mary Jane to act like an idiot.
That plot thread dovetails with the Venom/Black Spidey subplot to produce one of the most embarrassing sequences ever filmed by Sam Raimi. I'm referring to the homage to/parody of John Travolta's "strut" scene from Saturday Night Fever. I'm at a loss to understand what this scene is supposed to represent. If it's meant to be a serious shorthand/montage of Peter falling under the influence of the dark side, then it's way too arch and campy. If it's supposed to be funny and lighthearted, then it goes on way too long and beats its own joke to death. The culmination at the "jazz club" almost made me crawl under my seat.
You know Spider-Man 3 has gone off the rails when my first reaction to the death of the New Goblin was, "Wow, James Franco really didn't want to come back for 4." Major character death should not turn the audience's thoughts to contractual obligation.
Is the movie a disaster? No. Even with all these flaws, there is so much talent on hand that it's still got some very strong points. Bruce Campbell's cameo is hilarious; Brisco County Jr./Ash Williams breathes life into the movie for a couple of minutes. Topher Grace delivers a light-footed, teasing performance that made me wish they had waited until about number four to introduce Venom. As it is, Grace is there and gone, but his scenes with Maguire exude a spark that seems to come from within the two actors. The effects are spectacular, even when they're overdone. It's not the execution that's lacking here so much as a plan.
Sam, next time, when you think the script is done, give Michael Chabon a call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)