All posts by Matt

Foul Play

foul playThe night I introduced Lisa to Hopscotch is also the same night that I introduced her to Foul Play.  You could say the theme of the night was action/comedies that have faded from view but are still enjoyable.  Since “Quint” had not reviewed this one, I can talk more about the movie.

I have always mentioned how my parents, Mom in particular, have influenced my movie watching over the years.  There was a brief time in 1980 where I overdosed on movies due to the apartment we were living in at the time having HBO.  During that year, I caught up on James Bond, watched Grease way more than I should have, and watched movies my parents wanted to see.  Goldie Hawn was a favorite of both parents, so it was no surprise that they would watch a movie of hers when given the chance.  This was also the time frame that they started letting me watch more mature movies, where death occurred and certain situations were shown onscreen.  For the most part, I never realized those were there until I was older.

Foul Play is your typical tale of a person caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Goldie Hawn plays a newly single woman (never sure if it was a divorce or just a bad breakup, not that it matters) who is attending the engagement party of a friend.  She avoids being “picked up” by a clumsy stranger played by Chevy Chase.  As she drives home, she picks up a stranded motorist named Scotty.  From here, the story turns from a potential romantic comedy to a murder mystery that has Hawn reacting to upsetting events left and right.  That clumsy stranger played by Chase ends up being the police detective assigned to her case, and predictably, but gladly, becomes her romantic interest.

What makes this movie work is its cast.  Hawn is often portrayed as the ditzy blonde; here she is simply a caring woman reacting to all of the wackiness around her.  If this role were recast as a male today, it would easily go to Jason Bateman.  Chase used this movie to launch himself away from Saturday Night Live; his cockiness and smarm fits well with his character.  Amazingly, though, Chase does a good job of dropping the wisecracks and demonstrating genuine concern when needed.  Burgess Meredith turns in a great comedic turn as Hawn’s landlord and protector.  Brian Dennehy as Chase’s partner does the heavy lifting for the tough guy side of things.  What I always think of when I think about this movie, though, is Dudley Moore’s performance.  While he only has three scenes, those scenes are classic Moore.

My advice:  Pop this in the next time you have a date night where you are looking for something with a little more than the typical romantic comedy – and look for the scene where grandmothers play a form of Scrabble you would not expect…

Hopscotch

hopscotch

One of the disadvantages to having a movie habit like mine is that you have to have a job that pays for said habit.  Periodically my job requires me to be available in off-hours, limiting my social options for that time frame.  Thankfully, I had a friend recently offer to cook me dinner and watch a couple of movies on DVD while I was tethered to my computer.  At the same time, “Quint” from Ain’t It Cool News was reviving his “A Movie A Day” column and wrote an interesting piece on a movie that I had in my collection, The Criterion Collection version of Hopscotch.  I wish I could say I could top Quint’s review, but sadly I cannot.  Here is a link to it for you to read after you finish this piece (there is strong language in his review):  http://www.aintitcool.com/node/60816 .

I remember when I first got this DVD.  It was in 2008 and was a free selection from a promotion that I do not remember.  I do remember being the most intrigued by it out of all of the other choices.  The fact that it was part of the Criterion Collection helped convince me.  For those not familiar with Criterion Collection, these are DVD and Blu-Ray releases that have been selected by an independent process to highlight story, visuals, and other examples of movie-making.  Most choices tend to be art-house movies or foreign films, but there are some more mainstream choices available.

Lisa had not seen this movie as it was not something she would have normally picked.  I chose it as one of the movies I would share with her in return for dinner.  So we settled in with some jambalaya and set our time machines back to 1980.

Walter Matthau plays our hero, a spy nearing the end of his years in the field.  He has spent years in Europe working against the KGB to further the American Way.  After completing a mission, Matthau finds himself benched by his pompous boss, played to perfection by Ned Beatty.  Matthau responds by doing what we have all wanted to do to our bosses at some point: give him his comeuppance.  Throw in a young Sam Waterston (Law and Order) and Glenda Jackson, and you have yourself the makings of a cast made to take advantage of the story.

Having seen it before and owning it, I obviously enjoyed it.  Lisa found it ok, but did remark that the pacing was slower than expected.  I would agree with her that the pacing is slow, but it is not a detriment to the movie.  Instead it allows the viewer to enjoy the setup of each scene and the performances contained in each one.

My advice:  Give this one a try if you are looking for a comedic look at the spy world that does not lampoon it like Austin Powers – if anything, it is a good reminder of how much the world has changed in 33 years…

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 & 2

Settle in for a long read, faithful TAM readers.  This is not going to be your average review, and there will be several plot points discussed…

The Dark Knight Returns (TDKR) pulls its story from the groundbreaking mini-series created by Frank Miller in 1986.  1986 was an interesting time for the world and the United States.  It was the height of the Cold War, and groups of Americans still had distrust for the government after the handling of Vietnam.  The wide-eyed, “Leave it to Beaver” innocence of the 50’s no longer existed as more and more people grew cynical about everything.  That cynicism started to bleed over into television, movies, music, and books.  Comics seemed to be the last refuge for those that wanted to believe that heroes would always do the right thing and were above reproach.

Then DC Comics did the unexpected by allowing Frank Miller and Alan Moore to publish dark tales of heroes.  Alan Moore presented The Watchmen, using characters that seemed to be clones of DC icons.  Since it did not contain any of the mainstream heroes, The Watchmen was seen as its own universe, one that did not mirror the current US, and seemed a bit extreme.

Dark_knight_returns

Frank Miller’s tale caught everyone off-guard for several reasons.  Most people my age grew up on the live-action TV show and the cheesy Saturday morning cartoons.  These formats gave us a Batman that was as much a Boy Scout as Superman is often referred to as being.  A dark and sinister Batman that could intimidate everyone was something new that reminded us of how much we liked another dark-caped fictional character, Darth Vader.  TDKR also gave us a different view of Superman, one of someone who is physically impressive, but may not be as strong as Bats in the brains department.  We were also unsure as to how to react to the fact that Bats was hated by the police and the US government.  Finally, we were not prepared for the amount of real violence depicted in Miller’s tale, perpetuated by both heroes and villains.

What followed after publication was the inevitable maturing of Batman as an icon.  The regular series took the reception of the mini-series as an indicator that the reading audience wanted a darker, grittier Batman.  Tim Burton used the dark, brooding icon as the basis for his vision of Batman on film.  He even references Miller’s book by mentioning a conflict in Corto Maltese, a significant location in TDKR.  The Batman most people love today has his roots more in Frank Miller’s creation than in Bob Kane’s original ideas.

Ok, enough about the comic book – this is supposed to be a movie review.

DC and Warner Brothers made the smart decision to split the story into 2 movies.  Normally, I hate this; however, by doing so, Warner’s was able to give us the entire story on-screen with little left out.  The comic mini-series was 4 issues; the movies were set up to do two issues per movie.  The overall animation is good and Andrea Romano does well with voice-casting.  She does not rely on her usual go-to Batman/Joker team of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill.  Instead she uses Peter Weller of Robocop (nice 80’s pop culture nod) and Michael Emerson.

391555_172302782904441_562469005_n

Part 1 shows us a Gotham City without Batman.  He has been “retired” for 10 years, leaving matters in Commissioner Gordon’s hands.  Most of Bats’s Rogues Gallery are locked up and show no sign of wanting to escape.  The first story arc deals with Harvey Dent going through plastic surgery to repair his mangled face and being released.  Soon a crime wave hits, Bats comes out of retirement, and it is soon discovered that there is no plastic surgery that can heal mental scarring.  Meanwhile, an undercurrent of unrest is flowing through Gotham thanks to a gang called the Mutants.  It also does not help things that the Joker’s shrink is going on TV and blaming Batman for creating all of the whackos.  One person who believes in Batman and wants to help is young Carrie Kelley.

Let’s pause for a moment and delve back into comics history.  In what seems like a throwaway scene in TDKR, one of the reasons given for Batman’s retirement is the death of Jason Todd, the vilified second Robin.  This scene is complete with a view of a memorial case with Jason’s uniform.  TDKR came out in 1986; does everyone remember what happened in 1988?  That’s right – DC killed off Jason Todd (oops, I mean “the public killed off Jason Todd by calling the phone number that said kill him”).  Given the unpopularity of Jason Todd, one can easily surmise that DC noted the public’s acceptance of Jason’s death in TDKR as clearance to kill him off in the main continuity.

277323_192894050845314_1096325202_o

Now back to the movie.  Carrie Kelley convinces Batman into keeping her as Robin after she helps him in escaping from his failed first encounter with the Mutants.  Even though he knows the risk of introducing another Robin, Batman also realizes he needs her help.  With that, he is able to defeat the Mutant leader and reestablish dominance over Gotham City.

That brings us to the end of Part 1.  On to Part 2…..

478224_216941005107285_1565610036_o

This is the part of Miller’s story that took everything we believed about Batman and turned it upside down.  Creating a story of this magnitude and not including the Joker would be like planning a Super Bowl party and not including the Super Bowl.  It just doesn’t happen.  While Joker’s homicidal tendencies had always been referenced, previous incarnations of Batman had always stopped the plans before anyone died.  Not true here – with every life Joker takes in TDKR, Batman relives the horror of his parents’ own deaths at the hands of a robber.  We don’t just see someone die – we see multiple people suffocate or carelessly shot by Joker as he walks along.  However, the most terrifying part is seeing how close Batman comes to breaking his one unbreakable rule of not killing.  Even then, it is questionable regarding Joker’s demise.  While Joker does the final act, it is Batman who makes it possible with little effort from anyone else.  What is not focused on, is how Robin ends up taking a life while trying to save hers.  All of this leads up to final story arc of Superman versus Batman.

If you saw Pulp Fiction, then you might remember the scene where Mia Wallace asks Johnny Vega if he is a Beatles man or an Elvis man.  She goes on to explain how you can appreciate both, but deep down you like one or the other more.  The same is true for comics.  More than any two other heroes from any publishing company, people most identify themselves as a Superman fan or a Batman fan.  In case you could not tell, I am in Bats’s cave.  Given the popularity of both, it has been a constant debate as to who would win in a fight between the two.  Miller makes every fan-boy happy by giving us that fight.  Neither hero survives unscathed, with the strengths and weaknesses of each one on full display.

One aspect I had not given much thought to was that of the obvious dating of the material.  I am so used to DC’s animated movies taking place at any point in time that I was not expecting obvious 80’s references.  The most jarring of these was the inclusion of Ronald Reagan in several scenes.  That made me look closer and realize that everything had an 80’s look to it.  The other notable reference was the use of Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union and the public’s fear of nuclear war.  It also makes you really appreciate a Batman story nearly 30 years old that still captivates the audience.

Both Blu-rays include the standard mini-documentaries on Batman, Superman, and Joker.  They also include select episodes from the animated series and digital copies of both movies.

My advice:  A must-buy for devoted Batman fans; for everyone else, definitely get it from Netflix or RedBox….

Hansel And Gretel: Witch Hunters

We are all guilty of it.  There are some movies that we go see that we know are bad, but we want to see them anyway.  Movie studios take advantage of this because it allows them to be lazy and go for the easy money grab.  This is particularly true for that high-school/college crowd that will see anything that is on the screen.  Like most people, I have found that I have grown out of that mentality for the most part.  That said, I still have moments of weakness.

Sunday afternoon found the rare occurrence of Rich and I both having the afternoon free and wanting to see a movie.  Usually I do not allow Rich to pick the movie because he always manages to pick bad movies.  This time around, however, I had intentionally saved this movie for him in case we did want to see something.  So off to Premier Cinemas we went.  Warning bells started going off in my head when I saw that it was produced by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay.  Why would an action/fantasy flick have comedians as producers?  This could be bad…

H&G is basically the story of Hansel and Gretel after they escape the candy house.  They grow up, roaming the land and killing any witch they encounter…for a fee.  What follows is a fairly predictable story: town in trouble, H&G show up, witches attack, heroes give chase, heroes lose, then heroes plan glorious final battle.  There are no real plot twists, since the ones that might have been are telegraphed way too early.  The action sequences are what you would expect for this type of movie.  The casting of Jeremy Renner and Famke Janssen was done to ensure a decent-size box office; their roles could have been played by anyone.

Right about now, you are probably asking yourself if I liked any of it?

The answer is yes, quite a bit actually.

While the movie certainly had issues with being predictable to the point that I knew everything within the first 10 minutes, it was filmed in such a way as to give some credit to the audience.  By allowing images and visual sequences run without dialog that over-explains everything, the movie assumes the audience is smart enough to follow the story, understand the justifications, and, most importantly, understand the rules of the universe that govern this story.  Once I realized that, I could see the influence of Ferrell and McKay.  Improv and sketch comedy have one goal: to tell a story.  Often that story is predictable, but it is how the actors treat it that keep it from being boring.

The other feature I liked was the pacing.  In talking to Rich after the movie, I found myself using Van Helsing as a comparison tool for this movie.  Van Helsing tried to be serious and brooding, but even worse it was way too long at 2 hours/10 minutes.  H&G is treated like a roller-coaster: a thrill ride that you want to ride, but not spend all day on.  H&G’s pacing brought it in around 90 minutes, the perfect length for a movie like this.  It also allowed the jokes to occur at times and trusted the audience to know that this was simply a thrill ride with no substance.

While available in 3D, I watched it in 2D.  I would recommend not picking the 3D option, as half of the movie is at night and could be difficult to see with the glasses on.

My advice:  Worth seeing in the afternoon or at the dollar theater; go only if you want to enjoy the roller-coaster and do not care about predictability of it…

Parker

Parker_2013_Movie_PosterAs much as we have embraced the noble hero in literature, TV, and film,  we also have gotten to a point where we want our heroes to have a dark side.  One of the arguments for revamping Superman in the comic books in the mid-80s was that he was too much of a “Boy Scout do-gooder.”  Batman was made darker through Frank Miller and Tim Burton.  Even Boba Fett was loved for being the “anti-hero.”

In 1999, Mel Gibson starred in Payback – a movie with the motto, “Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy.”  In it, Gibson played a bad guy who had certain principles and felt that others needed to live up to agreements.  It was a decent movie that picked up fans after it moved to cable and home video.

Fast forward to 2012…

Donald Westlake, the author who created the character that was the basis for Gibson’s role, had passed away.  After his passing, his wife made a deal for one of his other books to be adapted to film, this time using the true character’s name, Parker.  Hollywood’s current go-to action guy, Jason Statham, was immediately signed and filming began.

Parker is adapted from Westlake’s novel, Flashfire.  Parker is our protagonist and we are introduced to him and his principles during a heist of the Ohio State Fair box office receipts.  What follows is the inevitable betrayal and pursuit of those who did him wrong.  The pacing was kept fairly tight for most of the movie, and most of the casting was good.  Inevitably, though, I found myself seeing similarity between many scenes and those found in Payback; this time, however, the movie wasn’t filmed in washed out blue tones.  The action sequences, while extreme in a couple of instances, were enjoyable and helped keep things moving.

For me, the weakest part of the movie was the involvement of Jennifer Lopez.  The movie’s pacing felt like it ground to a halt each time she had a scene, and the justification for radical character shifts in Lopez was extremely weak.  It really feels like the producers felt they needed a leading female and potential love story, and they shoehorned this in.  To be fair, I have not read the book, so I do not know how this is handled by Westlake.  The one positive is that Lopez did the best she could with what she was given.

My advice:  Worth catching at a matinee or dollar theater; full price if you really want to see a movie since not much is out right now…