stuntman_James Blog

Under discussion:

Dan in Real Life  (2007)

    I am a huge Steve Carell fan.  Have been since the Daily Show and will most likely be that way for years to come.  Mind you that not everything he touches is gold.  While he was amazing in 40 year Old Virgin as the lead, his best roles are those of a supporting type like in Little Miss Sunshine and Anchorman.  Then comes Dan in Real Life.

    Carell plays Dan, a soon to be syndicated writer of an advice column entitled, you guessed it....Dan in Real Life.  He lives a real life with real problems and real phobias.  However, his real problems are his three daughters that sometimes treat him like dirt and his never ending mourning of his long gone wife.  

    Dan takes his daughters to Rhode Island to have a family reunion and assist in closing the beach house of his parents for the winter.  While there, he walks into a book store and into the life of a major love intrest Marie.  They have an intense although short affair and arrives home to only find out that the new woman in his life is actually the new love intrest of his brother, played by Dane Cook.  Soon the weekend becomes less about moving on and becoming closer to his children and more about avoiding conflict with his brother and avoiding falling in love with Marie.

    What makes this film tick and flow is the constant conflict with both his past and his future.  Dan has trouble relating to his kids and has trouble relating to anyone that may love him like he and his former wife loved each other.  At the core, Dan is a true sad sack.  He denies himself pleasure at the sake of living in his own misery.  When he is presented to cut his brother out of the picture and pursue a woman that has the same emotions and affections for him, he denies that, rather living in mourning and such.

    This film was good.  Carell puts up a fantastic acting job equal to that of his role in Little Miss Sunshine.  While I felt that his character was too 2 dimensional and lacked reality at times, it was still a pleasure to see him wallow a little.  His distant relationship with his daughters was too fake and cliché.  

Under discussion:

Halloween  (2007)

    I was going to write this review last week when I got to see it.  However, life supersedes everything...so better late than never....Here is my 2 cents for Halloween 2007

    Let me start by saying that I have a love affair for the original Halloween.  This movie was really the first horror film I saw all the way through, without stopping it or leaving halfway through the movie.  John Carpenter was brilliant, giving us an emotional movie that allowed our minds create the horror and violence more than what was ever shown on the screen.  He gave us a character that has a one track mind, and that was killing.  We created the motivation and the drive for his killing.  I remember when that little kid said you couldn't kill the boogey man.  

    Carpenter made Michael Myers indestructible, above death.  He was a cold, silent and deadly killer.  He had the curorisity of a small child.  The most chilling scene is when the poor guy who gets a beer is raised and stabbed into a cabinet.  He tilted his head like a small kid looking at a masterpiece in an art museum.  Along with the create camera work and the soundtrack, this was a true complete movie.

    So here comes Rob Zombie.  He, along with best wishes from Carpenter, decided to give us a remake of this horror classic.  It has that same low budget feel, but did it do the original justice?  In some ways yes, and in a lot of ways, no!

    We meet a 10 year old Michael Myers.  He is a victim of his environment.  He lives in the rundown house in the neighborhood.  He has a mom that struggles to save money by stripping, a moms boyfriend that is unemployed and drinks.  He has an older sister that is smart-mouthed and sexually exploring.  He has a baby sister that we think he adores.  However, we see the angst and the morbidity starting to form right form the opening scene.  He wears these masks to hide himself.  The torture and killing of a small pet is only the start to the road to an end.  

     He fights kids at school, which leads to killing the bully.  He tortures and photographs dead animals.  Soon, he commits heinous murders and is brought into the care of Dr. Loomis, played by Malcolm McDowell.  We see a sweet boy that loves his mother and little sister start dwindling to a silent murderer, consumed with masks to hide the ugliness of his inner demons.  Soon, he is an overwhelming man, cold and silent.  He is consumed with masks, and after escaping, returns to the place of his evil birth.  Haddonfield becomes his destiny, and the search for his baby sister.  

    He finally finds her and submits to her for acceptance, only she rejects him.  Soon, he stalks her again to kill her.  It is only the pleads from Dr. Loomis that Michael ends his killing spree, and in part loses his own life.   

     After viewing this movie, I have so many mixed emotions.  Overall, zombie pays tribute to a horror genre masterpiece, giving it his own spin on this tale.  It is so hard to really make stark comparisons to these two films, because while the characters are the same, the stories are different.  I see what Zombie is trying to achieve here with this story, I think it takes away from the original in so many ways.

    While the original does little in the origin of Michael Myers, that is what really motivates the movie.  He is a mystery, a riddle.  He is the boogeyman.  We don't know why  he kills or even what the end result is.  It is only near the end that we even know that Laurie is his sister.  The original focuses on Laurie.  Why did she survive the first attack on Michaels older sister?

    Zombie gives us the whys and hows in terms of the origin of Michael Meyers.  He is a victim of his environment and in someways it works, but for the most part it is a cop-out.  It is too easy to sit there and say, well he is a psycho killer because he was picked on at school, his moms deadbeat boyfriend and older sister treat him like crap, and the only people that really love him and accept him and his flaws are his baby sister and a mother that is really never there.

    Even Loomis is not the same.  I really loved Donald Pleasence as Loomis.  He was like chicken little running around yelling that the sky was falling.  McDowell's characterization of Loomis was remorseful and yet just bland at times.  

    Overall, it was a good movie.  While the original had very little if no blood and gore at all, while Zombie's film was gory, it was really never over the top.  The violence was a plot pusher, allowing us to look in disgust on how a little 10 year old boy could do this.  Just telling us he did it is really never as disturbing as seeing it for ourselves.  I will give Zombie credit in the fact that he did want to give us a different experience while not taking away too much from the original.  He keeps some of the soundtrack from the original, and adds a little himself.  With all the news from the beginning of this movies filming, the change of scripts and production problems, he did really want to put out a quality film.  While he does give us a quality remake, it does stand up as an original.  Three Stars out of 5 

Under discussion:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix  (2007)

    I am not a potter-phile geek.  I want to get this out of the way.  I have read the books and although they are a seminal good read, I was not one of the cosplay folks waiting with bated breath for the final release. 

    As for the films.  I saw the first one and as with all Chris Columbus films, it was more cheesey and child-like than serious.  I did not watch the  second film to spare myself of the diabetic induced sugary goodness.  I watched the third film on HBO and was happy with the darker feel of the film and the direction of Alfonso Cuaron, and did attend the fourth installment because of the series was becoming more adult as the main characters became more adult. 

    I waited several weeks to view the new installment of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  In terms of the film itself, it is now becoming more adult and in return more appealing to all who pluck down hard earned cash at the box office.

    We meet Harry after confronting Voldemort in the previous movie.  Harry has grown both mentally and physically.  Harry is more brooding and looks like he has hit the weights in the process.  After Harry saves his portly of a fat cousin Dudley, he has to appear in front of the Ministry of Magic to answer to his use of magic in front of muggles, or non-magic users.  After being exonerated all charges, he goes back to Hogwarts, but with a cloud over his head.  It seems that the Ministry has started a slander campaign against Harry because he insists he has seen Voldemort.  Soon friends and others turn on Harry.

    We also meet the Order of the Phoenix, an underground movement that is trying to prevent Voldmort from retaining an army, doing this against the ministry of magic.  Harry takes it upon himself to build a new army among those who believe Harry and realize that evil is about.  Soon, he teaches these young magicians complicated spells to arm and protect themselves.

    While they train, Hogwarts is under assault as well.  Not from Voldemort but from  the Ministry itself.  While they present a fascist regime in the running of the school, they are preventing the students and the Order from building an army for the inevitable fight between good and evil.  Soon, Voldemort is attacking those close to Harry.  Then comes the first fight between Harry, his followers and Voldemort and his minions.

    The film  works on many levels.  David Yates, a nominal television director, does a fantastic job creating multiple and complex story lines.  He still retains the magical world of Hogwarts and the people of the magical world.  Harry is torn and more complex.  He is no longer the bumbling child that relies on others to help him pass his classes and figure out the solution to the problems that J.K. Rowling presents in each book.  This time Harry is coming into his own as a wizard and a leader.  Snape, Sirus Black and Dumbledore allow Harry to grow.  They provide more depth to the film and characters. 

    What doesn't work well is the other surrounding characters.  The stumbling sidekick Ron grows tired and boring.  The whining and bossy Hermione is just the same in this film than in all the others.  While the main character and other characters have evolved, these two have not.

    I look forward to the last two.  I want to see this major lord of the rings style battle between the forces of good vs evil.  Like all great movies where good and evil clash, the two main characters have a unique connection.  Voldemort and Harry have that connection.  They can see each others thoughts and this will lead to a fantastic battle.  The final scene with wizards fighting each other was fantastic, but too short and really did not show what the true power of a wizard is.  Harry struggling with fear, awkwardness and anger reminds me of my own school days, battling with puberty and such.   

Under discussion:

The Dark Knight  (2008)

Alright Batman fans, and dont act like you are not one of them.  If you see the movie The Simpsons, you may be very lucky to see the teaser trailer for the new Nolan written and directed Batman Sequel.....The Dark Knight. 

I have been following this since it was made official and I have some doubts as to whether it can be pulled off.  I loved Batman Begins.  He treated the movie with the mythos that it deserved and gave life and breath to this floundering property( Thanks alot Joel Shumacher).  This movie was Batman.  He protects innocents by instilling fear in those bad guys.  He was more than a rich guy that can buy those wonderful toys.  He has purpose and drive.

So, lets fast forward ahead a year.  Nolan tells the world that the new villain is the Joker!  No duh!  Then he says that all looks and no acting talent Heath Ledger will play him.  WHAT!!!!  Then the first pics come out on the net, and needless to say, he looks less Nicholson/Romero joker and more Alan Moore " The Killing Joke" joker.  His smile looks surgical, much like Black Dahlia and he is sinister.  Then he adds a bat-cycle and the possibilitiy of another villian...Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face.  So here we go....two villians does not make a better.  

Lets hope for two things....keep the joker less Jerry Seinfeld and more serial killer and do not kill him!!!! no matter what!!!!!

 We will see what happens!!!!

Under discussion:

Live Free or Die Hard  (2007)

    It's hard when our favorite action stars strap on the loud gun and massive explosions once again, sometimes even at their rather senior citizen old age.  Rambo is coming back, and in return, beating him to the punch is our favorite swearing cowboy saying John McClane. 

    It has been over a decade since we last saw McClane fight off terrorist or just guys with a purpose and a vendetta.  Like all red-blooded and testostorone filled alpha male, I loved Die Hard.  Nothing says merry x-mas than explosions and snuffing out eurotrash german terrorists.  The other two were, lets just say, not up to snuff.

    So here we are.  John is divorced, single, bored and extremely hated by his daughter.   However, unknowingly, he is sent to retrieve a computer nerd/hacker for the FBI.  It seems that someone is hacking into the FBI servers and they want anyone who either knows who or actually did this,  

    It doesn't take long for John McClane to be thrown in to absolute havoc when his prisoner, played awkwardly by Justin Long, are running for his life.  It seems that this super nerd, played by Tim Olyphant  and his super hot ninja like assassin played by Maggie Q, are hiring other hacker-nerds to write code and start killing them off.  Thank god that Justin Longs' character is brought in by John McClane, as these two villains send big men with even bigger hardware to seek and destroy these teo.

    As usual, McClane frustrates the terrorists by just not dying.  Then we find out that  Olyphants character was in the FBI, warned them that a computer terrorists could shut down the country and then does it himself to prove a point.  He starts a " Fire Sale" and takes over everything connected to a computer.  Soon, traffic, utilities and computer networks are taken over by him.  In the end, John and his computer geek rescue McClane's daughter, foil the villains and everything is well when the sun comes up on a new day.

    In essence, the movie works well.  The statement that technology has consumed our lives is very relevant.  We cannot go anywhere without the internet or cellphones or computers to help live our lives.  Willis is still the wise-cracking cop he has been in all three other Die Hards.  He is stoic and no matter what his station is in life, McClane  is thrown in these situations.  The special effects are amazing and the story at times works well.

    What doesn't work is the villains.  Timothy Olyphnat is just not a bad guy.  Between the preening and the smoldering looks to the cameras and his non-convincing smugness, he is just a joke.  Even his martial arts, ninja ass kicking sidekick is more " Wow she is friggin hot!" than " man she is pure evil.".  Even Justin Longs character is more annoying than anything else.  His conspiracy theory laced diatribes are long in the tooth and short in plot substance.  Kevin Smith was great as this uber-nerd king of his own nerd kingdom.  The Warlock is just funny.....calling his basement in his moms house his Command Center, reminds me of every computer nerd I have ever met in my life.  The movie dragged in certain areas and could of been cut almost 30 minutes.

    Is this a good movie?  Yes.  Is it a good popcorn movie?  Yes.  Could it of been better......YES!  It was good to see them make a better movie than the 2nd and 3rd one, and this was good like the first one....but if I want a real good Die Hard, I'll just pop in my DVD and watch it again.

Under discussion:

Grindhouse  (2007)

       There was this movie theater down the street from where I grew up that had twin bill B-horror movies.  Cannibal Corpses, Black Candles, Sex on Wheels and Zombie! were the crap constantly dumped into my young horror fanatic mind.  If i wasn't at the movies, I was down the street at this small video rental place renting these grind house movies over and over again.

        For those of you not familiar with the glory of grind house movies, imagine real low budget movies with b-movie actors and actresses, nearly no special effects with some of the coolest titles that leave no wondering on what they are about.  Imagine watching these movies with seedy characters and threadbare cushions on the chairs and floors so sticky that you needed a blowtorch to get up and walk.

        I was so excited to learn that Tarantino and Rodrigiuez were going to attempt to give us back those days of bad horror movies.  They were even going to have fake trailers in-between the two movies......HELL YEAH!!

        We open with Rodriguez's Planet Terror.  Zombie soldiers start taking over the world, all genetically engineered to do just one thing......kill.  We get to meet El Rey and his stripper girlfriend, who ends up with one leg made from a machinegun/ mortar.   The are survivors wage war against these mutant zombies and soon we are treated to a movie that is simular to the gore-fest movies of the eighties.  Every zombie is nearly indestructable, every bullet makes blood shoot blood in a geyser like fashion and in the end, the planet is saved.

         Now we are treated to some of the best trailers we will ever seen.  Werewolf Women of the SS from Zombie, Edgar Wrights Don't, Roths Thanksgiving and Danny Treajo in Machete just oozes grindhouse.  Every trailer looks like it could be a kick ass b-movie. 

        We then get to see Deathproof.  Death on wheels is what on the menu, with a machonist killer in a kick ass muscle car.  He stalks women and gives them a drive in his " Death Proof " car.  Death proof to the driver only, he then comes across these girls who give him a ride for his money.  Soon we go from man to woman empowerment.  

        Rodriguez and Tarantino gave us examples of what these movies were about.  They were explotation films, exploiting sex and color and race.  These films are more homage to the genre than anything else.  Rodriguez gives us a more well rounded movie than some of his earlier work.  He trips us with the John Carpenter-esque synth tracks and the George Romero look and feel of the movie.  Add Jeff Fehey and other b-movie actors and a especially creepy job by Josh Brolin.  Tarantino's Deathproof is by far the best of the two.  Stuntman Mike, played by Kurt Russell is amazing and the women are every bit sexy and deadly.  The dialog is amazing as always in a Tarantino movie, and this is no exception.  While it does not have all the action that Planet Terror has, it is more sophisticated and just more well rounded.  

Under discussion:

Roger & Me  (1989)

Bowling For Columbine  (2002)

Fahrenheit 9/11  (2004)

Sicko  (2007)

    I am going to take a probably an unpopular stance here with my views on Michael Moore.  It seems that in the time when being a right wing republican with conservative views is quite dangerous, I planned on discussing about Michael Moore with out injecting my political views, but I find that as I am crafting my blog, it seems quite hard.

    I am, or was a documentary filmmaker.  With that said, I take great pride when documentaries take center stage for whatever reasons.  It is a unique art form that shows reality in any form it wishes.  However, I do also realize that documentary filmmakers give a very one-sided view on the subject matter the are filming.  Take Jesus Camp.  It was one of the few films that moved me when I viewed it last year.  I sat in disgust and pure terror, and after several different viewings of the film, realized that even though it was disturbing, it was a one sided view.

    So, now comes my thoughts on Michael Moore.  The conservative side of me becomes sick with thoughts of what this guy has become.  The Irish, blue collar side of me sees the " everyday man" he portrays himself as and I feel good that someone is looking out for the little guy with no voice.  But that voice is a whisper.

    I saw Roger and Me and was slightly amused that this rotund and portly guy was taking on the car giant.  He was a gnat that the flyswatter of big brother could not smack and kill.  It was a good film, but once again, a documentary that was extremely one-sided, although I did not realize it until I saw it again years later.

    Bowling for Columbine was his first real critical acclaim film that put the normal movie goer in the seats.  It was his left wing take on gun control.  Instead of giving people, especially those maybe not too intelligent to form their own opinions, a realistic view of gun violence in the world, he gave us misleading information.  Walking in a affluent section of Toronto and opening the doors of residents in gated communities gave us no valuable information on how to control guns in the world.

    Fahrenheit  9/11 was the big one.  He gave us a view of the terror attacks against innocent Americans and twisted it to look like we earned it.  He skewed our views that our president and his cohorts were responsible for 3000 people dying.  He shook his finger in shame to all those that supported an unpopular war and chastised those that morn the death of our heroes in Iraq.   

    Now comes Sicko. It is his take on the American Medical System and health care.   He berates the US for its poor health care system and even goes to Cuba to show that the prisoners of the war on terror.  While I have not seen this movie yet, it is on my docket for viewing this week, I am going to assume that it is the same liberal BS he has been spilling for years.  

    The problem with Michael Moore is that he offers no solution.  He creates anarchy and misinformation.  He gives us his personal beliefs and theories without offering on once of realistic solution.  He berates those who do not fall into his fold of idiot political beliefs and creates personal vendettas.  

    I may never agree with some when it comes to my personal political thoughts and beliefs, but I never chastise those that do not agree with me.  I may debate and in the end come with a better understanding on why they believe what they do.  Maybe someday he will also 

Under discussion:

The Break-Up  (2006)

    I am a sucker for romantic comedies and for movies that depcit relationships.  I generally date woman that love these films in the genre of " Chick Flicks!".  However, sometimes these movies sometimes give a false sense that no matter what happens, when boy meets girl and boy loses girl, boy will eventually get girl back.  However, as we all know who have dated real people, that is the furtherest form the truth.

    So, here is my part one of movies that depict real life and real relationships.  While they are maybe not genre busting films, they do portray reality in stark vision.

1. Closer:  What can be said about this film.  This is a love it or hate it flick.  You either understand the raw image of relationships and what it takes to maintain them or you hate it becuase you cannot accept reality in their escapes.  What this movie does is show that life and love sometimes sucks.  However, it never martyrs itself.  It never offers itself for death by burning at the stake.  Love and relationships are and can be brutal.  Cheating, abuse and self-loathing are there for some.  

    4 lives intersect with each other, with each other falling in love with the other, cheating on their current lover and fears abound about the hurt we can do to each other.  We hurt those we are close and love the most, and this movie makes it aware.  We are vicious as humans and find ways to manipulate the things that hurt or can cause pain in our significant other.  

    Are all lives and loves like this.  No, but we have all been in a relationships that are toxic, that are bad and in the end it turns painful and hurtful.  We remember those relationships because those are the relationships that build our mistrust and make the future relationships suffer to knockdown those walls.  Sometimes love is a battlefield!

2. The Breakup:  Romantic comedies with reality?  No freakin' way.  However, sometimes you will find a diamond in a pile of cubic zirconia  and costume jewelery.  It is everything you would expect from a romantic comedy starring Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn.  A couple starts finding itself in the rut that leads to contemplating breaking up.  Each starts coniving and concoting ways to get each other back, tipping the balance of power to each others side.  They battle who gets control of their studio apartment in Chicago and set each other up by dating other people to hurt the other.  Let the comedy mishaps ensue1

    What makes this movie realistic is how it ends.  When I saw it in the theaters, i saw it with 20 something girls who live and dream to be Aniston.  So, when the ending comes around and Vaughn decides he wants to save the relationship, it ends.  What went from giggles and happiness from the other patrons went down the crapper.  Sighs and sobs were abound because like reality, this relationship ends.  What was even more realistic is that the final scene sees our two characters running each other.  It is uncomfortable becuase that is how it is in real life.  Their lives have moved on, and empty promises have been made about catching up and reconnecting, but we all know that never happens!!

stay tuned for part two