GradysGhost Blog

Under discussion:

Renaissance  (2006)

I waited for my local Blockbuster's single copy of this film to come back in stock so I could watch it.  I had extremely high hopes for Renaissance.  I am a fanatic for good science fiction and the visual style thrilled me just watching the trailer.

I wish I could say the movie is as action-packed as the trailer makes it out to be.  This isn't the Matrix, though it is clearly heavily influenced by it.  There are also traces of Blade Runner here, with a noirish style.  That's not to say the story isn't original.  It's very entertaining, but I couldn't decide whether the movie was a calculated attempt at making us see the fallacy of beauty and immortality or a roller coaster of thrills.

The visual style is amazing, however.  With the exception of the lip-syncing, I have never before seen computer generated animation bring such life-like movement to human characters.  The strong, black-and-white coloring removes the texture from things that usually end up making real life hard to create on a computer, like skin and hair.  What you end up with instead is something that doesn't try to pretend it's not animation.

There is almost no gray in the picture.  The only such color comes in reflections.  This seems, though, that it would have been a style of filmmaking better suited for a movie like Equilibrium.  There it would have realized the severe contrast between people with emotions and their oppressors.  Here, there are no two specific sides.  An overwhelming corporation bent on bringing beauty to the masses becomes the backdrop for a plot about Barthelemy Karas, a tough cop, tracks down a kidnapped woman and stumbles upon a corporate scheme, a puzzle whose pieces have been scattered and hidden well.

The plot is actually rather simple, but both my wife and I found ourselves vaguely confused since you are given no introduction whatsoever or even clues as to what characters are talking about.  I can't remember character names, mostly because the characters whose names are said frequently (aside from Ilona, the kidnapped woman) get killed off in rapid succession.  By the end of the movie, of course, everything makes sense.  I was a little underwhelmed to discover the simplicty of the story after I had found myself so confused.

I still can't not recommend this movie.  It's great entertainment and the film is a wonder to watch, even if only for its pure aesthetic value.  And if you like the Matrix and Blade Runner, you'll probably like Renaissance a whole lot and even recommend it to others.

Under discussion:

Bobby  (2006)

The year is 1968. A controversial war rages overseas. Planet of the Apes dazzles American audiences. Robert "Bobby" Kennedy is nearing the first victory on the road to winning the US presidential election where he promises to end racial prejudice, pointless and hateful violence, as well as the terrible crisis in Vietnam.

And then, the night his presidential candidacy is to be decided, he is shot and killed in the Ambassador Hotel in L.A.

Bobby is not Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but it may well be the first honest-to-God good movie he's directed. The film has an ensemble cast of characters that each seem to feel a different connection to then-Senator Kennedy, whether it's simply greeting him and welcoming him into the hotel in the case of John Casey (played by Anthony Hopkins) or working by his side as a campaign volunteer like it is for Wade (Joshua Jackson).

While Wade feels connected to the democratic process, constantly disparaging a reporter from socialist Czechoslovakia, his black sidekick Dwayne (Nick Cannon) believes with all his heart that, after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy is the last hope for putting an end to racial prejudice.

Over the course of the movie, we also follow the stories of the hotel's manager (William H. Macy) and his wife, who finds out from the hotel's food and beverage manager (Christian Slater) that Macy is cheating on her with a phone operator (Heather Graham). Macy's wife happens to be the hotel's stylist. She cuts the hair of the stars who stay at the Ambassador Hotel, including Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore) who is slated to sing tonight prior to her introduction of Kennedy himself.

William and Diane (acted out by Elijah Wood and Lindsay Lohan) are getting married in the church so that William won't be drafted to go to Vietnam. He's getting cold feet because he doesn't think Diane really loves him. Diane is slowly finding out that she really, really does.

Cooper and Jimmy (the up-and-coming Shia LeBeouf and Brian Geraghty) are also volunteers for Kennedy's campaign, but they decide to take the day off. They get some LSD from a stoner named Fisher (Ashton Kutcher) and spend the day tripping.

All of these stories and more (there are tons of them involving even more well-known actors not mentioned yet, like Martin Sheen, Helen Hunt, Emilio Estevez himself, Laurence Fishburne, Harry Belafonte, and Sharon Stone) take place concurrently without much interaction between them until the final, destructive moment of the film: the Kennedy assassination.

This works both to the movie's benefit and detriment. While it's never difficult to keep the stories straight, there also isn't much story actually happening. It turns out what actually keeps you watching is the fact that the individual scenes are so short that you get the effect of plot. Instead, what you have is lots of character development with no real story development.

On the other hand, Bobby isn't about the myriad characters coursing their way through the hallways and tennis courts and swimming pools of the Ambassador Hotel. It's about the death of Robert Francis Kennedy. Moreover, it's about the death of everything he represented to the characters - freedom from racial division, from the unending pointless violence, from the Vietnam War and the draft and the countless Americans travelling home by way of body bag.

The point is... what's the point? Is this movie just a relic? Just a memory of Senator Kennedy as he would have been? Is it a call coming forward through time to look at our own situation? Is it saying we need a savior, and if so, is it saying our country's savior already died and that we already lamented this loss? Is Bobby just a love song for a fallen hero?

This is where the movie has its real flaws. Ashton Kutcher's mediocre performance can be overlooked because it is so miniscule. There are a couple of cheesy lines, like when Laurence Fishburne delivers a monologue to one of his prep chefs saying that the prep chef is a "future king," but the biggest problem the movie has is that the themes are blurred together so you can't figure out what Estevez was trying to get at, like so much ink running down soaked paper.

The condition of war, racial downtroddenness, high society and alcohol abuse, the emotional impact of human aging, death, life, youth, drug consumption -- I could keep on for quite some time. These things all have a prescence in Bobby. The trouble is simply figuring out why and for what purpose.

But don't let that fool you. The film is still gripping. A stark reality surrounds everything. A sense of innocence falls over everybody. Irony runs through Bobby, and builds tension. We, the audience, know that Kennedy will be dead by the time we leave the theater (or sofa), but the characters do not.

Bobby is unsure of itself, but still manages to be a powerful, moving picture that captures in its two hours a full snapshot of the 60's and the present-day ramifications of the tragic event on June 4, 1968.

Under discussion:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End  (2007)

Okay.  So the movie was entertaining.  It's tough, but I have to admit to that.  That said, the movie was still extremely flawed, and I can't say as I like it as much as Curse of the Black Pearl.

First, the plot was so confounding that I felt like I was playing a board game.  Seriously.  You know how when you're playing Monopoly with the family, there's always that stickler to rules who says, "You can't sell your Get Out Of Jail Free Card for fifty bucks!  It says so right here on the box cover!"  That's what it felt like watching At World's End.  "You can't elect Elizabeth Swan!  That's against the rules!"

Secondly, there's the fact that this third installment doesn't exist without the second installment.  If I had it my way, I would have taken all the plot-driven elements of Dead Man's Chest (about 20 minutes of screen time) and thrown them at the beginning of At World's End.  It would have made both movies better.

Still, the special effects were terrific.  The acting was decent (though it seems like Depp may be getting tired of the Jack Sparrow routine).  The maelstrom scene at the end was pretty cool.  I wish they hadn't brought the god Calypso into it.  That's Greek and we're discussing the Caribbean islands.

If you're a fan of the series and you easily buy into the convoluted storylines, you'll probably like this one more than I did.

Under discussion:

Pieces of April  (2003)

Do you like those movies you get around the holidays made by those Frank Capra wannabes?  The movies that are so damn sweet they make your stomach hurt?  The ones that are so sappy you'd rather laugh than cry?

Clearly, I don't.

And that's precicely why Pieces of April made me smile.  Katie Holmes may not be the first name you think of when you think of a quirky, goth-esque girl living in a small apartment in the slums of New York City, but I don't think any other actress could have pulled it off.  She's living with a boy named Bobby, and they don't just love each other - they are in love with each other.  Now it's Thanksgiving morning.  April's prepping to cook a giant Thanksgiving dinner for the rest of her family.

That's problem number one.  The rest of her family consists of her cancer-ridden mother who is constantly sick from the chemotherapy; her mild, passive father (played by Oliver Platt); her prim and proper, always right bitch of a younger sister; her brother (who seems to be the only voice of reason amongst them all); and her grandmother with Alzheimer's.  It's a six-hour road trip for the crew, and they're all pretty bitter about the fact that they don't get along with April and she can't cook.  Oh, and they're all stinking, filthy rich and don't know Bobby is black, which leads to both great comedy and a feeling of tragedy later in the movie.

But the movie has a happy ending - I'll tell you that much - and in no way is it sappy or mushy.  Even my brother, who only gets into movies when things explode into the stratosphere, liked this movie.  It's a good film for everybody, and with a PG-13 rating, it would be a guaranteed family film if it were only as popular as it deserves to be.

Under discussion:

Star Wars [Film Series]  (1977)

Seven  (1995)

Pieces of April  (2003)

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  (2003)

The Lord of the Rings [Film Series]  Production Year

Troy  (2004)

Harry Potter [Film Series]  Production Year

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe  (2005)

The New World  (2006)

Superman Returns  (2006)

Apocalypto  (2006)

Epic Movie  (2007)

I told them.  I told them both.

"We have three free rentals from Blockbuster, " I said.  "Yes, it's Tuesday, and that means new releases.  But," I concluded, "you do not want me to get Epic Movie."

But I was outnumbered two to one.  Overruled.  I should have said something.  I should have just not wasted a perfectly good free rental.  But alas, I care too much about my wife and my brother.  So I rented Epic Movie.  The "unrated" DVD (more on this subject to come later today) had a 93-minute running time, some six minutes longer than the theatrical release.  I hoped it was funny.  If not, it was only an hour and a half - a pretty short movie considering some of the epics I've seen.

And that was just the first thing wrong with the movie.  If you're going to make a spoof (and this one is a spoof, not an homage) about epic movies, you should probably try and mimic the epic movies you're making fun of.  The Lord of the Rings trilogy ran about ten hours, and that's not including all the extra scenes you get on the extended cuts.  If Epic Movie ran ten hours, I would have shot myself.  Or choked on my own vomit.

It doen't even make fun of epic movies.  Here is a brief list of movies that Epic Movie spoofs:

The Chronicles of Narnia (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe); Pirates of the Carribean;  Superman Returns; Harry Potter; various MTV shows/styles (i.e. Cribs, rap music videos).

And here is a list of movies that might be considered epic:

The Chronicles of Narnia; Troy; Lord of the Rings; The New World; Apocalypto; I might even throw in Star Wars.

Please note that the only film listed in my Epic Movies list as well as my Epic Movie list is Chronicles of Narnia.  So here's the joke from the movie - They stumble through a mysterious wardrobe to find a land called Gnarnia.

"The G is silent," says Lucy.

"For legal purposes," says Mr. Tumnus.

To follow the pattern here, I'll ape South Park and say, "SIMPSONS DID IT!!!"

The movie is rife with these kinds of jokes.  Every single one of them falls flat on its face like a skateboarder or a gymnast tyring to perform stunts on a planet with three times Earth's gravitational pull.  Only watching skateboarders or gymnasts do that would be the more enjoyable experience.

For the first time in my life, I've seen fart jokes fail to make me or my brother laugh.  It's because we were expecting them.  Other jokes that keel over like a drunken frat boy: vomit gags abound (pun intended); Lucy says everything the black chick says over and over and over again; apparently (and I didn't know this before), rap songs become funny when they are performed by pirates or Crispin Glover.

I have a hard time believing anybody read this script before deciding to make the movie.  I guess there was enough there to market, enough interest in the movies it parodies, to be given release without much thought as to quality.

Don't watch this movie.  Even though I said it was only ninety-three minutes, that's still ninety-three minutes I could have spent watching the other two movies I rented - Se7en and Pieces of April.  Hopefully, you should be hearing about those two soon, and hopefully they'll be better reviewed.

(For the record, I have seen Se7en twice, but it's been a very long time since the last time I watched it.  I need to watch it again to be able to give it a fair review.)

Under discussion:

Murder by Death  (1976)

Night of the Living Dead  (1968)

The Naked Gun  (1988)

Scream  (1996)

Scary Movie  (2000)

Not Another Teen Movie  (2001)

Kill Bill Vol. 1  (2003)

Dawn of the Dead  (2003)

Shaun of the Dead  (2004)

Spider-Man 3  (2007)

Date Movie  (2006)

Epic Movie  (2007)

Have you ever seen Murder By Death?  I have.  I watched it last night.  It's a "dinner-and-a-murder" caper written by Neil Simon.  Really, it's almost a spoof of capers, but that's a hard call to make because capers are spoofs of murder mysteries.  Or homages.  One of the two.

Where's the distinction?  Where does one cross the line between spoof and homage.  Lemme go to the dictionary.

My Dictionary tells me that homage (which can be pronounced "hom-ij" or "ohm-azh") is "respect or reverence paid or rendered" and that a spoof is "a mocking imitation of someone or something, usually light and good-humored; lampoon or parody."  So the difference is respect?

I beg to differ.  A spoof can be respectful.  Look at The Naked Gun: From the FIles of Police Squad.  The Zuckers and Jim Abraham (ZAZ as they have been known to be called) are clearly poking fun at cop movie and TV shows (since Naked Gun started out as Police Squad, a thirty-minute television program that only lasted six episodes).  But I think they do it respectfully.  As in the source material, the Naked Gun series' Frank Drebin always gets the bad guy at the last second, usually at gunpoint, and always gets the girl (who is always Jane).  Even though the films tend to disparage police since the main character is a bumbling idiot, they never seem to forget where they came from.

Often with spoofs - and this has become painfully obvious lately with disasters like Date Movie and Epic Movie - entire scenes from original material will be played out by different actors.  One scene in Scary Movie (title trend duly noted, guys) even mentions that it's all just a scene from another movie.  How respecful is that?  If I recall, they even mention that movie's title - Scream, of course.  If respect had been eliminated from Scary Movie, I would probably have been the first to flare up in anger considering Scream is one of my all-time favorites, and probably one of the most brilliant horror films ever (I'll be talking about metafiction soon, methinks).

In regards to homage, I'll provide the example Shaun of the Dead.  Two unsuspecting losers find themselves hungover in a town full of stupid, slow zombies.  The film pays respects to just about any zombie flick that came before it, most notably Night of the Living Dead.  The title, after all, is a play on one of Night's sequels and was probably a play on the popularity of Stuart Gordon's zombie flick released about the same time, Dawn of the Dead.  The difference between Shaun of the Dead and The Naked Gun (besides the fundamental fact that we're comparing cop movies to zombie features; I would compare it to Hot Fuzz, but I have yet to see it and it's just not fair to compare movies you haven't seen)?  Shaun of the Dead was executed more stylistically similar to the films it credits.  The Naked Gun series, indeed most of ZAZ's combined and individual efforts, have a style of their own.

Also, when you laugh at Naked Gun or Scary Movie or Not Another Teen Movie, you're usually laughing at the idea that they really are making fun of something.  When you laugh at Shaun of the Dead, you're not.  The jokes are original.

Maybe that's the root of it all - a spoof and an homage are really the same thing with only one difference.  A spoof needs to be funny (or attempt to be).  An homage does not.

Humor doesn't hurt, as Quentin Tarantino has shown us.  I laugh when I watch Kill Bill.  Because it's a direct throwback to other movies that people adore and despise as much as any other, yet it feels so comfortable and natural to watch it.  You don't feel bad about laughing the way you do when you laugh at movies like Spider-man 3 in the middle of a theater full of people who seem to be actually enjoying it seriously (cue caterpillar-esque lip-quiver).

Tarantino is a writer/director, though who makes me question his originality.  Does he actually write original screenplays and direct original movies when so much of each film he makes is grounded in movies made before his birth?  Does that make him derivative?  All he seems to do is make homages to other directors, but I like them all the same, even if I didn't like the movies they're referencing.  That must have something to do with the true nature of homage, then.  There's got to be something original in it.  I guess I would say that Tarantino is original by way of being derivative.  There's enough there to say, "This is just like that one movie!" but enough there to say, "This is definitely a Tarantino film."

Wow.  I got pretty far astray from where I started here.

Murder By Death - spoof or tribute?  Hard to say.

Not to spoil the movie if you've never seen it, but at the very end, after all five detectives (who are all based strongly on other famous fiction detectives - Sam Spade, Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, et al) make their wagers on the killer, and the butler is revealed to be Lionel Twain (Truman Capote), Twain actually stands up to reveal his motive was to get back at all the terrible endings to mystery novels and movies ("where the killer is a character who hasn't even been introduced until five pages from the end"), a screenwriting move that makes Twain's character completely break free of the realm of the movie.  Never before had it been mentioned that the detectives were actually based on other fictional characters.  You just assumed it.  Because it's a spoof.  Or an homage.  Or something.  It is this pivotal moment in the film that makes me unable to determine whether Murder By Death is simply farce or tribute.  The fact that Lionel Twain is played by Truman Capote - a real-life novelist who even wrote a book called In Cold Blood which was a real-life murder mystery - convolutes my brain with thoughts of metafiction (will get to discuss this later when my thoughts subside a bit).

Because of the lack of distinction here, I can't give this movie anything but a mediocre rating.  But it really did make me think.  Something that most comedies can't make me do.

I'm all confused.  Anybody have thoughts on this?