"I don't suppose she lives on the ground floor?"
A young man buys a camera in hopes of documenting the strange nocturnal occurrences going on in he and his girlfriends house.
Seeing Paranormal activity was a bit of an accident. Originally the plan was to see The Invention of Lying, but when lunch ran long I convinced Watcher X to see this instead. My knowing when the next showing was playing was no coincidence however, as I had had my eye on this movie for a while now after I'd heard about it's long journey to the screen after sitting in a vault for years. Now it's setting records for profitability, a box office smash- even out selling the the newest installment of the apparently never ending Saw series.
I'm usually unimpressed by spook fests as often the story is left emaciated to better serve the scares. However, this one has earned itself a place in my good graces for striking a much better balance. As opposed to the usual sacrifices, the two main characters in Paranormal Activity (scenes where the acting takes a bit of a cigarette break aside) endear themselves to us. Micca and Katie feel very natural, and very honest. You more than not get the sense that you're baring witness to their daily lives. And I think anyone who's ever lived with a significant other would agree that this movies portrayal is, often hilariously, spot on.
And there in lays the real secret to this movies success in my opinion. Because the characters feel real enough to warrant caring about, the scares strike deeper. Half of the spook of this movie is in our main characters reactions. And let me assure you: there may be moments where the acting might fall a bit flat, but these scenes are never phoned in. And though these "scare" sequences are almost always filmed from the same angle- they never get old.
Paranormal Activity is light on computer generation. It's scenes are simply done, but in no way lacking. In truth it keeps the movie from ever feeling like it's trying to hard, and this is another place that it sets itself apart from the usual. It keeps it simple, and is never afraid to set aside scaring you to concentrate on just plain creeping you out.
Any fan of jumping in their seat will go home happy from this one. But I think fans of chills and mind tricks will feel unusually happy as well. Paranormal Activity may not have been on my "See It" list, but guess what? I'm in that "fans of chills etc." group I named earlier. It's a sleeper hit, and now that I've seen it I understand why. It also serves as a perfect example of the Bob Ross theory: There are no mistakes, just happy accidents.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Five!!: Movies That Defied Their Series
!!Avast Matey, thar be spoilers ahead!!
Chapter 1: Once Upon a Time in America
From romance to sci-fi, The Dollars Trilogy to The Lord of the Rings, episodic storytelling has been an indelible tool of the movie maker since long before my time. And so there are a whole lot of movies that might make it into a topic thus far reaching (indeed once I'd thought of it I was flooded with ideas). But the more I considered it, the more I realized there was a narrow type to the movies I was looking for. For me to succeed, I would have to get specific.
Chapter 2: The Rules of Engagement
So specific I got. First, said property would have to have at least three installments to count as a series- nowhere in the definition of "series" is the word "pair". Second, in order to be defied the series in question must otherwise have a cohesive sense of self and quality. In other words, good or bad, the other movies in the series have to match one another. And third, a movie defying it's series has to in some way oppose the status quot set forth by the afore mentioned sense of self. One changed actor doesn't count.
Chapter 3: GO!
With the foundation laid my job became much harder- but I believed it to be ready now to yield a much better result. I gave it some thought, and put finger to key. Here's what I came up with...
With the foundation laid my job became much harder- but I believed it to be ready now to yield a much better result. I gave it some thought, and put finger to key. Here's what I came up with...
Episode: Spider-Man 3
Defying: Spider-Man 1&2
We'll start it off nice and simple, with something on which most people can agree- even Sam Raimi. The First two Spider-Man movies were trailblazers in a lot of ways. At the time the first hit the big screen it was an easy contender for the title of best comic adaptation. It wasn't perfect, but with so many years worth of material to bring to the screen (and so many plans to please) it never could have been. It was however, a strong representation of it's title character- and a hint at what comic book movies could be. Then Spider-Man 2 came along. Enthralling, emotional, and stronger in character and story, Spider-Man 2 left me sure that I was witnessing the birth of a new favorite trilogy.
So what went wrong? You'll hear critics go back and forth on everything from the odd emo dance sequence to Topher Grace, but one thing they all agree on is that there were just too many villains. One of which no one could figure out why he was even there. As a result, everything in the movie suffered a loss of screen time. The entire movie was too full, and nobody could seem to find a good movie under all that clutter.
So what went wrong? You'll hear critics go back and forth on everything from the odd emo dance sequence to Topher Grace, but one thing they all agree on is that there were just too many villains. One of which no one could figure out why he was even there. As a result, everything in the movie suffered a loss of screen time. The entire movie was too full, and nobody could seem to find a good movie under all that clutter.
Episode: Alien3
Defying: Alien, Aliens (I consider Resurrection a failed reboot attempt)
Ridely Scott gave us brilliant production value, a hero to love, and a monster to fear. James Cameron gave us more: more beautiful production, more characters and development, more emotion, more aliens. Then David Fincher took it all back. He took genius production and gave us grey or orange corridors. He killed our characters and gave us nameless penal fodder. He pulled us back from witnessing the entire, fascinating, life-cycle, and gave us a single drone- again.
Episode: The Matrix
Defying: Matrix: Reloaded, Matrix Revolutions
The Matrix is on this list for a bit of a different reason than the others: because it was the only one in it's series that was good. It took one of the oldest cards in the sci-fi deck and looked at it from a new angle, which is no easy task. It was fully devoted to telling a story (albeit an action friendly one), even filming the scenes that took place inside the matrix through a green filter to make them feel unreal. Then the other episodes came. A few choice words to describe them: self important, pseudo-philosophical stunt shows. They were so busy trying to seem deep that they forgot to actually have depth. As a completest I had to finish them, but I was rather unimpressed.
Even with Keanu Reeves as the lead, The Matrix was an impressive outing, thus proving that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Episode: Look Who's Talking Now
Defying: Look Who's Talking, Look Who's Talking Too
I think a lot of people have forgotten about these movies, but personally I remember them fondly. They held a lot of very cleverly delivered insight into the ways men and women (and later brothers and sisters) interact. It also spoke volumes on the things we do for our children, no matter how stupid those things may seem or make us look. If your my age (26 as of last week) you were a little to young to have seen what I'm talking about. I suggest you go back like I did, and try them again. You'll catch a lot of things you missed before- especially now that you've lived through some of the things they're talking about.
Then there was the third installment, I'm still not sure what that was about... other than trying to make money... which it didn't...
Episode: Mission: Impossible II
Defying: Mission: Impossible and Mission: Impossible III
The first and the last entries into the cinema trilogy remake of the 1966 television series Mission: Impossible had a two very important things in common: 1.) They had a pronounced sense of intrigue. 2.) They were spectacular! But the second movie made the horrible mistake of trying to make Ethan into a John Woo Style action hero (insert dove joke here). Though it possessed a great cast, it lacked pretty much everything else that made the others so enjoyable, and in being utterly ridiculous it defied it's series.
The first and the last entries into the cinema trilogy remake of the 1966 television series Mission: Impossible had a two very important things in common: 1.) They had a pronounced sense of intrigue. 2.) They were spectacular! But the second movie made the horrible mistake of trying to make Ethan into a John Woo Style action hero (insert dove joke here). Though it possessed a great cast, it lacked pretty much everything else that made the others so enjoyable, and in being utterly ridiculous it defied it's series.
*Honorable mention goes to the 1990 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which fought off the censors as best i could and dared to have a dark edge, and relevant story.*
So that's another Five!! down. As always, let me know your additions! Thanks to jaimeescalante for his video. I own know rights to anything- ever.
Look at that, two Sergio Leone references in one Five!!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Law Abiding Citizen
"At exactly what point- did we lose control here?"
A seemingly average man reveals himself as much more when his family is murdered, and the District Attorney's office cuts a deal that sets one of the guilty men free.
What's the only thing worse than an awful movie?
Cinema Factoid: Between the years 1990 and 2000 Samuel L. Jackson appeared in more movies than any other American actor. I bring this up because apparently Gerard Butler has similar goals set for the 2011-2020 decade, and if he keeps up this pace he just might do it. This movie is his third feature film release this year (fourth overall) and in terms of his performance, he saved the best for last.
About a half hour into Law Abiding Citizen I found myself thinking of David Fincher's Se7en, which is one of the best compliments I could ever give to a fellow psychological thriller. But where Kevin Spacey's John Doe is an unpalatable monster- Butler's Clyde is an interesting breed between a villain and an antihero. In what is simply the best dramatic performance I've seen from him yet, Butler has the audience rooting for him if only between bouts of complete disgust.
From Jamie Fox we see a simpler character made almost as interesting, which is still a compliment. Add all this to the movies straight off the line intensity, and the fact that both Colm Meany and Bruce McGill are in a movie together (which pretty much made my day) and you have what I had thus far been convinced was a recipe for a great movie. I leaned back into my seat and allowed myself to be taken for the remainder of my ride with no doubt that I would be pleased...
So, what's the only thing worse than an awful movie? A terrific movie- with an awful ending.
It was like a train wreck: I didn't even know there was a problem until we were already careening across the country side, track nowhere to be seen. Law Abiding Citizens ending flies in the face of everything the movie seemed to be building toward: motives are completely over turned, characters act and are treated completely against the boundaries they'd been established to have, and a decently mental experience is concluded with big booms and clever one-liners. The over all conflict of the film isn't even addressed, let alone resolved. And what was shaping up to be a interestingly dynamic character is all of a sudden revealed to be completely static- there by negating any point to the movie at all.
To me it screams of bad test audience response, an eleventh hour re-write- which would be fitting since even the cast was rearranged at the last minute (originally Butler and Foxx were set to play each others roles) It would also explain the movies one hour and forty-eight minute run time, which leaves the ending where the story feels like it should just be beginning to climax. And this is where that voice in my head pipes up, arguing that maybe the ambiguity of the ending was the whole point, that the fact that the main problem could never be solved (or even cared about apparently) was what Law Abiding Citizen was there to sell all along. Put simply if it was, I'm not buying it.
Reel Deal Recommends:
Colateral: For an under appreciated thrill with Jamie Foxx
RocknRolla: Gerard Butler, Guy Ritchie, Great Movie.
Cinderella Man: Bruce McGill's and every other performance in this movie soars.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: I'm sorry, but in my heart Colm Meaney will always be Chief O'Brien.
A seemingly average man reveals himself as much more when his family is murdered, and the District Attorney's office cuts a deal that sets one of the guilty men free.
What's the only thing worse than an awful movie?
Cinema Factoid: Between the years 1990 and 2000 Samuel L. Jackson appeared in more movies than any other American actor. I bring this up because apparently Gerard Butler has similar goals set for the 2011-2020 decade, and if he keeps up this pace he just might do it. This movie is his third feature film release this year (fourth overall) and in terms of his performance, he saved the best for last.
About a half hour into Law Abiding Citizen I found myself thinking of David Fincher's Se7en, which is one of the best compliments I could ever give to a fellow psychological thriller. But where Kevin Spacey's John Doe is an unpalatable monster- Butler's Clyde is an interesting breed between a villain and an antihero. In what is simply the best dramatic performance I've seen from him yet, Butler has the audience rooting for him if only between bouts of complete disgust.
From Jamie Fox we see a simpler character made almost as interesting, which is still a compliment. Add all this to the movies straight off the line intensity, and the fact that both Colm Meany and Bruce McGill are in a movie together (which pretty much made my day) and you have what I had thus far been convinced was a recipe for a great movie. I leaned back into my seat and allowed myself to be taken for the remainder of my ride with no doubt that I would be pleased...
So, what's the only thing worse than an awful movie? A terrific movie- with an awful ending.
It was like a train wreck: I didn't even know there was a problem until we were already careening across the country side, track nowhere to be seen. Law Abiding Citizens ending flies in the face of everything the movie seemed to be building toward: motives are completely over turned, characters act and are treated completely against the boundaries they'd been established to have, and a decently mental experience is concluded with big booms and clever one-liners. The over all conflict of the film isn't even addressed, let alone resolved. And what was shaping up to be a interestingly dynamic character is all of a sudden revealed to be completely static- there by negating any point to the movie at all.
To me it screams of bad test audience response, an eleventh hour re-write- which would be fitting since even the cast was rearranged at the last minute (originally Butler and Foxx were set to play each others roles) It would also explain the movies one hour and forty-eight minute run time, which leaves the ending where the story feels like it should just be beginning to climax. And this is where that voice in my head pipes up, arguing that maybe the ambiguity of the ending was the whole point, that the fact that the main problem could never be solved (or even cared about apparently) was what Law Abiding Citizen was there to sell all along. Put simply if it was, I'm not buying it.
Reel Deal Recommends:
Colateral: For an under appreciated thrill with Jamie Foxx
RocknRolla: Gerard Butler, Guy Ritchie, Great Movie.
Cinderella Man: Bruce McGill's and every other performance in this movie soars.
Star Trek: The Next Generation: I'm sorry, but in my heart Colm Meaney will always be Chief O'Brien.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Informant!
"I just want to get from my car to the office without being confronted by the decay of western Society- plus I'm cheap!"
A man turns whistle blower on the company he's dedicated his life to- but as the F.B.I. investigates they soon find that things don't quite ad up with his story.
So, as you may have already guessed, the confounding "free pass" situation ended with the clean slate option. I just couldn't bring myself to sit through the horrible first half of "Couples Retreat" again- just so I could be sure the second half was bad. And so it fell to The Informant! To bat clean up, and for the most part I would say it came through.
I can't resist opening with the observation that Scott Bakula plays a large role in this movie. In a cast full of faces you know but maybe can't place- he is an old friend you never forgot. It is always nice to see him again, his understated performances are always a pleasure, and The informant! Is no exception (although enterprise is).
This movie is packed with comedy which spawns from the quietly telling Chuck Palahniuk-esque factoids on everything from corn to polar bears, and the complete oddity that is the true story it is inspired by. Speaking of which I did a little research, and from what I've read this movie is pretty accurate as far as the overall story goes. I say this only because of the amount of fiction that usually gets put into "based on a true story" movies, Remember the Titans I'm looking in your direction...
I've always said that there is a difference between something action less and something boring. The Informant! Is never boring. From it's Charlie and the chocolate factory invoking opening to the inevitable text epilogue, I felt engaged and interested. At no point does this movie lay flat- in fact it's painted as a sort of pseudo-mystery, which keeps the watcher guessing as to whats really going on until the very end.Matt Damon shines brightly at the reins of this cast in terms of performance. In a welcome change, he steps a bit away from his usual to craft an intriguingly non-Damon character. The performance is nearly flawless, and I say nearly because at the very en of the film there are a couple scenes where he sheds the guise and brings back that same-old-Damon character. These scenes however are in the minority, serving more to prove how good the rest of the performance was.
In the end, The Informant! just didn't have the star power to compete with the debuts around. Personally I think this is a shame because it was a nice bit of storytelling. I don't think it's going to make it onto anyone's "Best Movies of all Time" list, but that doesn't mean it's a waste of your time- indeed I can't think of a Soderbergh film that is... ok well Ocean's Twelve, but that's the only one... I think...
Watcher X says: "It was decent... but I still hate Matt Damon."
Reel Deal Reccomends:
Talented Mr. Ripley: For brilliant performance from Matt Damon.
Quantum Leap: Because I felt dirty when I tried to write anything else here.
Solaris: For a Steve Soderbergh film that gave me chills over and over.
A man turns whistle blower on the company he's dedicated his life to- but as the F.B.I. investigates they soon find that things don't quite ad up with his story.
So, as you may have already guessed, the confounding "free pass" situation ended with the clean slate option. I just couldn't bring myself to sit through the horrible first half of "Couples Retreat" again- just so I could be sure the second half was bad. And so it fell to The Informant! To bat clean up, and for the most part I would say it came through.
I can't resist opening with the observation that Scott Bakula plays a large role in this movie. In a cast full of faces you know but maybe can't place- he is an old friend you never forgot. It is always nice to see him again, his understated performances are always a pleasure, and The informant! Is no exception (although enterprise is).
This movie is packed with comedy which spawns from the quietly telling Chuck Palahniuk-esque factoids on everything from corn to polar bears, and the complete oddity that is the true story it is inspired by. Speaking of which I did a little research, and from what I've read this movie is pretty accurate as far as the overall story goes. I say this only because of the amount of fiction that usually gets put into "based on a true story" movies, Remember the Titans I'm looking in your direction...
I've always said that there is a difference between something action less and something boring. The Informant! Is never boring. From it's Charlie and the chocolate factory invoking opening to the inevitable text epilogue, I felt engaged and interested. At no point does this movie lay flat- in fact it's painted as a sort of pseudo-mystery, which keeps the watcher guessing as to whats really going on until the very end.Matt Damon shines brightly at the reins of this cast in terms of performance. In a welcome change, he steps a bit away from his usual to craft an intriguingly non-Damon character. The performance is nearly flawless, and I say nearly because at the very en of the film there are a couple scenes where he sheds the guise and brings back that same-old-Damon character. These scenes however are in the minority, serving more to prove how good the rest of the performance was.
In the end, The Informant! just didn't have the star power to compete with the debuts around. Personally I think this is a shame because it was a nice bit of storytelling. I don't think it's going to make it onto anyone's "Best Movies of all Time" list, but that doesn't mean it's a waste of your time- indeed I can't think of a Soderbergh film that is... ok well Ocean's Twelve, but that's the only one... I think...
Watcher X says: "It was decent... but I still hate Matt Damon."
Reel Deal Reccomends:
Talented Mr. Ripley: For brilliant performance from Matt Damon.
Quantum Leap: Because I felt dirty when I tried to write anything else here.
Solaris: For a Steve Soderbergh film that gave me chills over and over.
The Reel Deal + Birthday = Slacker
And for that I apologize. Not only was it my birthday this week, but it was Watcher X's last week, so squeezing in time between all the celebrating (and being sick as a dog) was hard to pull off. However, even when I'm not reviewing- you better believe I'm still seeing movies! And I've already got three all queued up and waiting for their Reel Deal premier, plus another Five!! chomping at the bit. I'm going to try and get them all up this weekend so if you could bare with me until I'm all caught up I would be oh so grateful! Also, you might notice a small change with our interface. Just a minor addition to let you all know what's coming, and help me stay on task. Thank you again for your patience and expect to hear from me soon!
With Great Blogs Come Great Responsibility,
The Reel Deal
With Great Blogs Come Great Responsibility,
The Reel Deal
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Adventures in bargain basement cinema!
A couple blocks from our apartment there is a little "mom and pop" theater. And now that I think about it I should really have plugged them by now, but I think in this particular article might not be the right place. This theater has first run movies for second run prices- which makes it a sort of mecca for Watcher X and I. Not Mecca in the sense that we get on our knees and pray in it's direction twice a day, but Mecca in the sense that we often make a pilgrimage to it's doors.
On the whole, a full service trip to this theater (Tickets, popcorn, pop, and a Nerds Rope- don't ask) runs around $16 dollars, that's $8 bucks a person- which is the price per ticket at the nearest chain theater. But, like all things good, it's a double edged sword and the "rub" comes in three forms. 1.) There are only four theaters, and though they'll often switch out a movie that been playing since it's opening weekend for something that's in it's second or third week out, this still makes for a bit of a limited selection. And to see certain movies you'll just have bite the bullet and hit the bigger theaters. 2.) It never gets any of the more independent movies, which isn't really their fault. And 3.) Showings sometimes fall victim to "technical difficulties" though usually their small scale.
This past Friday, Watcher X chose Couples Retreat for that evenings visit and we settled into our seats hoping for, but in my case highly doubting I would get, a comedy explosion. I'll save the details for the full review but for now I'll share that it seems, from what I saw, that my doubts were well placed. I say from what I saw, because we didn't finish the movie. This is an hour and forty-seven minute long movie, and around the 80 minute mark the audio died. The projector was still running, but there was no sound. I waited the obligatory couple of minutes for the problem to be righted and then went and informed the nearest employee. A few other patrons followed suit as the problem persisted, but eventually it came down to this: Some where around eight or ten people, spaced out across the theater, sitting in the dark, staring at a movie with no audio.
And then a funny thing happened. That seen with the overly friendly yoga instructor started to play (there's no spoiler here as we've all been bombarded with it in the previews and T.V. spots). Couples Retreat had been good for some chuckles until the sound had died, but all in all it hadn't gotten much out of us. Now, as physical comedy played out on screen, one by one we all started to laugh. The joke itself was funny, but what was really cracking me up as time went on was the irony. Our theater, which had been relatively unmoved by a fully functional film, was now in uproar at a mute screen.
Nobody stayed very long after that. Once that scene ended, the usher (who had been too busy laughing before hand to say so) announced that he would be handing out free passes and we grabbed ours and left, audio never having come back. We are still debating whether or not to finish the movie. On the one hand I'm a completest. If I start a movie, I want the full experience. But on the other, as Watcher X put so well: "Free passes- their like a clean slate!" Either way, I'm certainly not angry with our little theater. That is by far the worst "technical difficulty" I've ever experienced there. And after all, it's these kind of things that make for great stories. We may not have gotten a funny movie but we got a hilarious movie experience, and the movie sacrificed was of no major interest to either of us- no harm, no foul. If anything it endeared the theater to me. Why have quality when you can have character?
On the whole, a full service trip to this theater (Tickets, popcorn, pop, and a Nerds Rope- don't ask) runs around $16 dollars, that's $8 bucks a person- which is the price per ticket at the nearest chain theater. But, like all things good, it's a double edged sword and the "rub" comes in three forms. 1.) There are only four theaters, and though they'll often switch out a movie that been playing since it's opening weekend for something that's in it's second or third week out, this still makes for a bit of a limited selection. And to see certain movies you'll just have bite the bullet and hit the bigger theaters. 2.) It never gets any of the more independent movies, which isn't really their fault. And 3.) Showings sometimes fall victim to "technical difficulties" though usually their small scale.
This past Friday, Watcher X chose Couples Retreat for that evenings visit and we settled into our seats hoping for, but in my case highly doubting I would get, a comedy explosion. I'll save the details for the full review but for now I'll share that it seems, from what I saw, that my doubts were well placed. I say from what I saw, because we didn't finish the movie. This is an hour and forty-seven minute long movie, and around the 80 minute mark the audio died. The projector was still running, but there was no sound. I waited the obligatory couple of minutes for the problem to be righted and then went and informed the nearest employee. A few other patrons followed suit as the problem persisted, but eventually it came down to this: Some where around eight or ten people, spaced out across the theater, sitting in the dark, staring at a movie with no audio.
And then a funny thing happened. That seen with the overly friendly yoga instructor started to play (there's no spoiler here as we've all been bombarded with it in the previews and T.V. spots). Couples Retreat had been good for some chuckles until the sound had died, but all in all it hadn't gotten much out of us. Now, as physical comedy played out on screen, one by one we all started to laugh. The joke itself was funny, but what was really cracking me up as time went on was the irony. Our theater, which had been relatively unmoved by a fully functional film, was now in uproar at a mute screen.
Nobody stayed very long after that. Once that scene ended, the usher (who had been too busy laughing before hand to say so) announced that he would be handing out free passes and we grabbed ours and left, audio never having come back. We are still debating whether or not to finish the movie. On the one hand I'm a completest. If I start a movie, I want the full experience. But on the other, as Watcher X put so well: "Free passes- their like a clean slate!" Either way, I'm certainly not angry with our little theater. That is by far the worst "technical difficulty" I've ever experienced there. And after all, it's these kind of things that make for great stories. We may not have gotten a funny movie but we got a hilarious movie experience, and the movie sacrificed was of no major interest to either of us- no harm, no foul. If anything it endeared the theater to me. Why have quality when you can have character?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Zombieland
"The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are coming to see me today and they're not bringing flowers which just makes it real difficult to get organized."
Four strangers are thrown together as they all go about their buisness amidst a zombie apocalypse.
I have heard it said that when it comes to movies I suffer from a lack fun. An alleged inability to appreciate movies that are suppose to be fun, and little else. To these people (who obviously don't know me very well) I now have the perfect argument: Zombieland.
It's a difficult task to craft a story that's meant to just be a good time. Your characters have to have enough heart that the viewer form some kind of connection, yet be ridiculous enough to blend in with the environment. If they're too interesting then you risk the audiences disappointment that their story wasn't more serious. Not interesting enough, and who cares. Zombieland straddles these lines perfectly. We care about what happens to the characters, but not enough to care how important or dramatic it is- leaving us free to enjoy the ridiculous situations.
It's four characters (played by Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Abigail Breslin, and Emma Stone of recent Five!! fame) gel in an intentionally awkward way. Really it's their off beat chemistry that makes the movie work- which I guess is fitting seeing as they're 80% of the non-zombie cast. Eisenberg plays a beautiful straight man as the main character and narrator. I find myself imagining a celebrity death match battle between him and Michael Cera. Seriously though, they must constantly be vying for the same roles, I fear what would happen were this overlap in type castings to come to blows.
This is the second feature film from director Ruben Fleischer, and I will definitely have an eye on his next project- if only out of thanks. More exciting is this movie as proof that the writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are good for quality feature films, since they're writers being considered for the Venom spin-off marvel is pondering- but I digress. There is no part of Zombieland that is worth missing, especially a story arc I dare not spoil for those who haven't seen it. Not since Shaun of the Dead have I laughed so hard at a monster comedy. And believe me, any movie I'm willing to mention in the same breath as Shaun of the Dead must be worth it.
Reel Deal Recommends:
Cursed: Another tongue in cheek monster movie with Jesse Eisenberg
Kingpin: How could I mention Woody Harrelson and not mention Kingpin?
Definitely, Maybe: For an underseen movie and Abigail Breslin doing what she does best.
Superbad: Because I laughed, was ashamed and then laughed again. And because it put Emma Stone on the map.
Four strangers are thrown together as they all go about their buisness amidst a zombie apocalypse.
I have heard it said that when it comes to movies I suffer from a lack fun. An alleged inability to appreciate movies that are suppose to be fun, and little else. To these people (who obviously don't know me very well) I now have the perfect argument: Zombieland.
It's a difficult task to craft a story that's meant to just be a good time. Your characters have to have enough heart that the viewer form some kind of connection, yet be ridiculous enough to blend in with the environment. If they're too interesting then you risk the audiences disappointment that their story wasn't more serious. Not interesting enough, and who cares. Zombieland straddles these lines perfectly. We care about what happens to the characters, but not enough to care how important or dramatic it is- leaving us free to enjoy the ridiculous situations.
It's four characters (played by Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Abigail Breslin, and Emma Stone of recent Five!! fame) gel in an intentionally awkward way. Really it's their off beat chemistry that makes the movie work- which I guess is fitting seeing as they're 80% of the non-zombie cast. Eisenberg plays a beautiful straight man as the main character and narrator. I find myself imagining a celebrity death match battle between him and Michael Cera. Seriously though, they must constantly be vying for the same roles, I fear what would happen were this overlap in type castings to come to blows.
This is the second feature film from director Ruben Fleischer, and I will definitely have an eye on his next project- if only out of thanks. More exciting is this movie as proof that the writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are good for quality feature films, since they're writers being considered for the Venom spin-off marvel is pondering- but I digress. There is no part of Zombieland that is worth missing, especially a story arc I dare not spoil for those who haven't seen it. Not since Shaun of the Dead have I laughed so hard at a monster comedy. And believe me, any movie I'm willing to mention in the same breath as Shaun of the Dead must be worth it.
Reel Deal Recommends:
Cursed: Another tongue in cheek monster movie with Jesse Eisenberg
Kingpin: How could I mention Woody Harrelson and not mention Kingpin?
Definitely, Maybe: For an underseen movie and Abigail Breslin doing what she does best.
Superbad: Because I laughed, was ashamed and then laughed again. And because it put Emma Stone on the map.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
