Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Threenie Tuesday Movie Review: The Dictator
Time for another Threenie Tuesday movie review! Unfortunately I got caught up doing other things yesterday afternoon and didn't get to the theater in time to catch a 7-ish showing, so only one this week.
I caught the new Sacha Baron Cohen film, The Dictator. I've not seen any of his previous films, though I have watched a bit of Da Ali G Show, so I kinda-sorta knew what to expect. Most people will remember the hype surrounding Borat, and a little bit with Bruno and Ali G Indahouse. Shock value can be a powerful thing if you're trying to get people attention or make a statement, but its effectiveness depends on people's sensitivity to it.
By now it seems that most people are somewhat at peace with Sacha Baron Cohen's own brand of offensiveness. Either they've become desensitized or don't care anymore, which seems to be happening a lot to entertainers these days. For example, did you know Marilyn Manson put out a new album this month? Didn't think so. People found out that he's not really as scary as he seem onstage or in his music videos. Actually, he comes across as a pretty nice, humble guy in interviews. All the controversy and mystique just sort of dissipated over the past decade. (Of course in Manson's case, there's also the fact that his fans all graduated high school and moved on with their lives.)
In order to properly critique The Dictator, we need some way to evaluate all the supposedly shocking content. The cast of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia have stated that they let humor be their guide in deciding whether a bit is too far or not: it all comes down to, "Is it funny?" It's not the most objective consistent criterion I've heard (I'll talk about that some other time), but it's good enough for now I guess.
So, is The Dictator funny? Sometimes. Admiral General Aladeen, Baron Cohen's principal character, is a rather ridiculous (what else) caricature of the Middle Eastern war criminal. He's crude, selfish, narcissistic, and most of all, bigoted, which is the main characteristic from which the humor is drawn. This is Baron Cohen's strategy: heinously racist, sexist, and otherwise politically incorrect comments are spouted at audience stand-in characters by some inane bastard whom nobody could ever take seriously.
It's so bizarre, yet it sort of works. I didn't catch myself getting personally offended by anything said or done. The only time it came anywhere close was when Aladeen made a comment about Filipinos, but the joke was too moronic to mean anything to me.
One of the most disappointing elements of this film was the amount of body humor it used. Not sexual humor (actually some of that was kind of funny), but honest-to-goodness pee and poop gags. These can be incredibly funny in the right context, but in this case it was just crude and predictable.
In general, there were very few surprises in the movie. The plot (not that it mattered) was stock Adam Sandler fare, the characters (not that they mattered other than Aladeen and the one girl) were irrelevant, and the political commentary (which was the best hope for this film to be anything but a juvenile gross-out flick) was no more insightful than anything you can find on a 14-year-old's Facebook page. I found this to be rather disappointing since Da Ali G Show makes me cringe with anticipation, pity the guests, and generally just laugh my ass off. Baron Cohen can be the epitome of facetiousness when he wants to be, and I can respect that. I caught glimpses of that in The Dictator, but for the most part it's pretty dumbed-down.
I plan to watch Borat in the next week in order to form a more contextualized opinion. However, I believe that a work should stand on its own, unless the necessary background is clearly identified (take the Family Guy Star Wars episodes, for instance). In that respect, I cannot recommend The Dictator. If you just want to be entertained... I don't know, watch cat videos at home or something.
6.7/10
Monday, May 21, 2012
Russian Circles & A Short Reflection on Genre
Here's a concert I'm pretty excited to attend: Russian Circles & And So I Watch You From Afar, June 22 2012 @ Biltmore Cabaret, Vancouver. Russian Circles is an instrumental rock band I've liked for a few years now, and this is the first chance I've had to hear them live.
And So I Watch You From Afar (yes, that's the band's name) is a Belfast-based band also set to play that night. I'd never heard of them until I caught wind of the concert, but I checked them out, and I'm even more excited to go. This is the kind of music I want to make. Take a listen.
I read someone describe ASIWYFA as a "mathematically influenced punk" band. I suppose that's accurate, but the purpose of the comment was to point out that they're not a post-rock band. This is just silly to me. I honestly don't understand all the backlash against the term, "post-rock," or most genres for that matter. Remember all the bands that refused to be known as "emo" in the early- to mid-2000's? The same happened with "nu-metal" in the late 90's, and "grunge" in the mid-90's. You'll often notice artists, especially ones from alternative scenes, get really touchy when people talk about the genre of their work. (Just so we're clear, I'm not specifically talking about ASIWYFA.)
The thing is though, that these terms are not value judgements. Not originally, anyway. Genres are the territory of journalists and critics. They're descriptive terms invented to explain what a work (in this case, music) is like. Genre talks about the structure, style, and often the cultural context of the work. It's more for the benefit of the listener than for the artist, meant to set up appropriate expectations about how to listen to the music, not to put it in a box.
Many artists have a rather cynical outlook on genre. I've heard some dismiss it as an outdated system created by music shops to figure out how to stick which records where. [I'll leave the dirty jokes to you guys.] Others blame it more on music journalists, those guys who clearly don't understand music at all since they have to steal its soul by writing about it. It's an us-against-them mentality, and it may show my ignorance or naivete to say this, but my guess is that it's unnecessary for artists to be antagonistic about this. Other music business drama notwithstanding.
Personally, I find genre categorization fascinating, as a thinker, musician, and music lover. Genre is a critical thinking and listening tool, and this is what artists miss. Perhaps rather than fearing genre, they could study it and use it to their advantage. Categories and limitations are great creative tools. They eliminate the paralysis of the blank canvas, providing a place to start making art. At the same time, one doesn't need to be a slave to genre. If you know what the rules are, you also know exactly how far you can bend them.
So I guess what I'm saying is this: if the shoe fits, wear it. It not...
Become a cobbler? Or at least learn more about shoes.
And So I Watch You From Afar (yes, that's the band's name) is a Belfast-based band also set to play that night. I'd never heard of them until I caught wind of the concert, but I checked them out, and I'm even more excited to go. This is the kind of music I want to make. Take a listen.
I read someone describe ASIWYFA as a "mathematically influenced punk" band. I suppose that's accurate, but the purpose of the comment was to point out that they're not a post-rock band. This is just silly to me. I honestly don't understand all the backlash against the term, "post-rock," or most genres for that matter. Remember all the bands that refused to be known as "emo" in the early- to mid-2000's? The same happened with "nu-metal" in the late 90's, and "grunge" in the mid-90's. You'll often notice artists, especially ones from alternative scenes, get really touchy when people talk about the genre of their work. (Just so we're clear, I'm not specifically talking about ASIWYFA.)
The thing is though, that these terms are not value judgements. Not originally, anyway. Genres are the territory of journalists and critics. They're descriptive terms invented to explain what a work (in this case, music) is like. Genre talks about the structure, style, and often the cultural context of the work. It's more for the benefit of the listener than for the artist, meant to set up appropriate expectations about how to listen to the music, not to put it in a box.
Many artists have a rather cynical outlook on genre. I've heard some dismiss it as an outdated system created by music shops to figure out how to stick which records where. [I'll leave the dirty jokes to you guys.] Others blame it more on music journalists, those guys who clearly don't understand music at all since they have to steal its soul by writing about it. It's an us-against-them mentality, and it may show my ignorance or naivete to say this, but my guess is that it's unnecessary for artists to be antagonistic about this. Other music business drama notwithstanding.
Personally, I find genre categorization fascinating, as a thinker, musician, and music lover. Genre is a critical thinking and listening tool, and this is what artists miss. Perhaps rather than fearing genre, they could study it and use it to their advantage. Categories and limitations are great creative tools. They eliminate the paralysis of the blank canvas, providing a place to start making art. At the same time, one doesn't need to be a slave to genre. If you know what the rules are, you also know exactly how far you can bend them.
So I guess what I'm saying is this: if the shoe fits, wear it. It not...
Become a cobbler? Or at least learn more about shoes.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Threenie Tuesday Review: Safe
Here's my belated review from this past Tuesday. Thanks for your patience. Because there were totally people out there, eagerly waiting to hear what I thought of Safe, right?
Now, I've got lots to say on this film, so I waste time telling you stuff that you won't find out from watching the trailer, or giving details that IMDB or Wikipedia can do better.
This review represents the latest development in a progression I've been experiencing, so it's related to other things I've been thinking about. I wish I could just give you a grade or number of starts telling you whether you should see Safe or not.
If only it were that simple...
In fairness, I should mention that I didn't see this movie alone. I went with four other people, most of whom I know from college. I tend to prefer watching movies alone, at least for the first time. I can watch LotR, Star Wars, Napoleon Dynamite, or That Thing You Do! (ooh, gotta blog about that one eventually) with friends or family. We'll talk a lot, recite dialogue as it happens, give commentary, etc. and it actually does add to the fun.
But normally, if I'm seeing a movie for the first time with other people, my personal viewing experience is significantly colored by my perception of their experience. More often than not, that coloration results in a less enjoyable experience for me. I'm interested and concerned by what they think, how our experiences might differ, and why. It adds a layer of social awkwardness to the moviegoing experience, and it's something I try to avoid.
I bring this up because, if I'm honest, it did influence my opinion. I should explain. Sometimes I have trouble deciding between two options. Do I want chicken or beef? Coke or ginger ale? Should I sleep on my left side or my right?
When I get in jams like these, I find it's helpful to ask the opinion of someone whom I love, trust, and respect. Then do exactly the opposite of what they say.
It's not that I don't think people's advice isn't valid. It's quite valid. But it's also wrong. Therefore, when I get other people's advice, I have the highly valuable knowledge of exactly what I should not do.
I want to assure you that I'm kidding. If only it were that simple...
Anyway, movie review.
As we came out of the theater, one of my friends expressed the typical opinion that Jason Statham movies are enjoyable crap. Personally, I kinda liked it, and not as a "so-bad-it's-good" movie. I thought it was pretty good. Whether I just wanted to disagree with my friend or not, I'm not sure. Let's see how well I rationalize this.
As a person who approaches entertainment critically, I had to learn over a period of time how to watch Jason Statham movies. The first one I saw was The Transporter 3. I'll be honest, I hated that movie. It was pure Eurotrash. Especially the Eurotrash girl.
As I watched more Statham films, I grew to understand that there were certain things one had to know to expect in order to enjoy them, and possibly even pick out some genuine strengths. None of them did I think were really good films. They were pretty good action films, with stories and acting ranging from bad to just okay.
The first one I saw and really liked was The Mechanic. This one takes a lot of explaining as well. I guess I should save that for another entry. Suffice it to say, though, that I grown to appreciate Statham films for what they are.
Right, so... Safe. One of the most important elements of any story is characterization, and in this case writer-director Boaz Yakin and cast actually did a pretty good job.
Statham's character, Luke Wright, seems much more human than a lot of his previous roles. Right from the beginning, the guy has less than nothing. There are some character moments of surprising depth and vulnerability in the early scenes. When he stumbles his way into the plot and makes his first kill of the movie, he tells the shocked crowd around him, "Don't lose sleep. He had it coming," then proceeds to vomit off-screen, presumably out of remorseful disgust. This is as hardened and brutal a character as Statham has ever played, but this isn't his typical gruff anti-hero or almost-villain. Wright is a man of violence, suffering, and near despair, but he is a hero in the traditional sense of the word. His investment in Mei is not based on greed, lust, or revenge, but on a value for human life, and a desire for justice, as near as he can hope to accomplish. There is one quibble I have with him though, which is that the first time we see him, he's an MMA fighter. For barely a scene. It's a rather thin excuse for a plot hook, and I can't help but think there are a hundred more plausible ways Yakin could have handled that.
Mei, played by young Catherine Chan, seems like a real (albeit somewhat precocious) child. Her portrayal is more realistic than I had expected. Early on in the story she is presented as an exceptionally intelligent and brave girl. At the same time, I appreciated the fact that she wasn't ultra-capable just because she was a genius. Geniuses are often really stupid people, and middle-school-aged kids are still kids. There is an interesting balance here: she is dangerous, yet somehow helpless.
The crime bosses, played by James Hong (known as the host from the Chinese restaurant episode of Seinfeld) and Igor Jijikine, are pretty genuinely bad guys. I'm reminded of Elastigirl's speech to Dash and Vi in the Incredibles: they do not value Mei's life any more than those of the victims of their rackets. They want what they want, and they're willing to kidnap, threaten, torture, or kill a little girl to get it. Their henchmen, Reggie Lee and Joseph Sikora, respectively, are just as ruthless, though Lee's character has a more interesting role to play as Mei's adoptive father, earning him a little more screen time than any of the other major mobsters.
There are some weaker characters here, such as Wright's crooked NYPD frenemies, or the mayor of New York, or his aide. For the level of influence they have on the plot, they're relatively flat characters. A little acting flair or some wittier dialogue writing would have added a little more complexity.
Of course, this is a Jason Statham movie, so maybe deeper character motivations and a more involved story would have clogged up our sensory input channels too much, leaving no room for all the firefights and beatdowns. The plot was exactly as complex as it needed to be to carry the action and drama.
One of the things that I noted in retrospect is that the level of violence was not particularly high, which I suppose works well with the "good guy" version of the Statham action hero. The fight scenes weren't the most memorable I've seen. Perhaps it's due to going from the large-scale destruction in The Avengers, or the squicky brutality of last year's Drive, but Safe didn't really stand out to me. Action movies are sort of an all-or-nothing, go-big-or-go-home proposition. If you don't have a massive wad of money to dump into your action scenes, you'd better do something extra clever.
That said, Safe is overall a step up from Statham's usual schtick. There's extra tension, drama, and even heart in this film. Oddly enough, the most tender-hearted character in the whole movie is actually Luke Wright. It seems that Statham has some hidden depth as an actor. I won't pretend that Safe was a really good movie, but it's good enough to give some hope to Hollywood after last year's rather depressing lack of anything good to watch.
Out of 10, I give this a 7.8. See it if you want, if you don't, don't. Keep an open mind if you do. It might surprise you.
Now, I've got lots to say on this film, so I waste time telling you stuff that you won't find out from watching the trailer, or giving details that IMDB or Wikipedia can do better.
This review represents the latest development in a progression I've been experiencing, so it's related to other things I've been thinking about. I wish I could just give you a grade or number of starts telling you whether you should see Safe or not.
If only it were that simple...
In fairness, I should mention that I didn't see this movie alone. I went with four other people, most of whom I know from college. I tend to prefer watching movies alone, at least for the first time. I can watch LotR, Star Wars, Napoleon Dynamite, or That Thing You Do! (ooh, gotta blog about that one eventually) with friends or family. We'll talk a lot, recite dialogue as it happens, give commentary, etc. and it actually does add to the fun.
But normally, if I'm seeing a movie for the first time with other people, my personal viewing experience is significantly colored by my perception of their experience. More often than not, that coloration results in a less enjoyable experience for me. I'm interested and concerned by what they think, how our experiences might differ, and why. It adds a layer of social awkwardness to the moviegoing experience, and it's something I try to avoid.
I bring this up because, if I'm honest, it did influence my opinion. I should explain. Sometimes I have trouble deciding between two options. Do I want chicken or beef? Coke or ginger ale? Should I sleep on my left side or my right?
When I get in jams like these, I find it's helpful to ask the opinion of someone whom I love, trust, and respect. Then do exactly the opposite of what they say.
It's not that I don't think people's advice isn't valid. It's quite valid. But it's also wrong. Therefore, when I get other people's advice, I have the highly valuable knowledge of exactly what I should not do.
I want to assure you that I'm kidding. If only it were that simple...
Anyway, movie review.
As we came out of the theater, one of my friends expressed the typical opinion that Jason Statham movies are enjoyable crap. Personally, I kinda liked it, and not as a "so-bad-it's-good" movie. I thought it was pretty good. Whether I just wanted to disagree with my friend or not, I'm not sure. Let's see how well I rationalize this.
As a person who approaches entertainment critically, I had to learn over a period of time how to watch Jason Statham movies. The first one I saw was The Transporter 3. I'll be honest, I hated that movie. It was pure Eurotrash. Especially the Eurotrash girl.
As I watched more Statham films, I grew to understand that there were certain things one had to know to expect in order to enjoy them, and possibly even pick out some genuine strengths. None of them did I think were really good films. They were pretty good action films, with stories and acting ranging from bad to just okay.
The first one I saw and really liked was The Mechanic. This one takes a lot of explaining as well. I guess I should save that for another entry. Suffice it to say, though, that I grown to appreciate Statham films for what they are.
Right, so... Safe. One of the most important elements of any story is characterization, and in this case writer-director Boaz Yakin and cast actually did a pretty good job.
Statham's character, Luke Wright, seems much more human than a lot of his previous roles. Right from the beginning, the guy has less than nothing. There are some character moments of surprising depth and vulnerability in the early scenes. When he stumbles his way into the plot and makes his first kill of the movie, he tells the shocked crowd around him, "Don't lose sleep. He had it coming," then proceeds to vomit off-screen, presumably out of remorseful disgust. This is as hardened and brutal a character as Statham has ever played, but this isn't his typical gruff anti-hero or almost-villain. Wright is a man of violence, suffering, and near despair, but he is a hero in the traditional sense of the word. His investment in Mei is not based on greed, lust, or revenge, but on a value for human life, and a desire for justice, as near as he can hope to accomplish. There is one quibble I have with him though, which is that the first time we see him, he's an MMA fighter. For barely a scene. It's a rather thin excuse for a plot hook, and I can't help but think there are a hundred more plausible ways Yakin could have handled that.
Mei, played by young Catherine Chan, seems like a real (albeit somewhat precocious) child. Her portrayal is more realistic than I had expected. Early on in the story she is presented as an exceptionally intelligent and brave girl. At the same time, I appreciated the fact that she wasn't ultra-capable just because she was a genius. Geniuses are often really stupid people, and middle-school-aged kids are still kids. There is an interesting balance here: she is dangerous, yet somehow helpless.
The crime bosses, played by James Hong (known as the host from the Chinese restaurant episode of Seinfeld) and Igor Jijikine, are pretty genuinely bad guys. I'm reminded of Elastigirl's speech to Dash and Vi in the Incredibles: they do not value Mei's life any more than those of the victims of their rackets. They want what they want, and they're willing to kidnap, threaten, torture, or kill a little girl to get it. Their henchmen, Reggie Lee and Joseph Sikora, respectively, are just as ruthless, though Lee's character has a more interesting role to play as Mei's adoptive father, earning him a little more screen time than any of the other major mobsters.
There are some weaker characters here, such as Wright's crooked NYPD frenemies, or the mayor of New York, or his aide. For the level of influence they have on the plot, they're relatively flat characters. A little acting flair or some wittier dialogue writing would have added a little more complexity.
Of course, this is a Jason Statham movie, so maybe deeper character motivations and a more involved story would have clogged up our sensory input channels too much, leaving no room for all the firefights and beatdowns. The plot was exactly as complex as it needed to be to carry the action and drama.
One of the things that I noted in retrospect is that the level of violence was not particularly high, which I suppose works well with the "good guy" version of the Statham action hero. The fight scenes weren't the most memorable I've seen. Perhaps it's due to going from the large-scale destruction in The Avengers, or the squicky brutality of last year's Drive, but Safe didn't really stand out to me. Action movies are sort of an all-or-nothing, go-big-or-go-home proposition. If you don't have a massive wad of money to dump into your action scenes, you'd better do something extra clever.
That said, Safe is overall a step up from Statham's usual schtick. There's extra tension, drama, and even heart in this film. Oddly enough, the most tender-hearted character in the whole movie is actually Luke Wright. It seems that Statham has some hidden depth as an actor. I won't pretend that Safe was a really good movie, but it's good enough to give some hope to Hollywood after last year's rather depressing lack of anything good to watch.
Out of 10, I give this a 7.8. See it if you want, if you don't, don't. Keep an open mind if you do. It might surprise you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)