The Wolf Of Wall Street

No, I haven't seen an advance screening, just read the script. Not only will studios release their Oscar bait movies this time of year, they often make several screenplays available online, legal and free, though it's generally temporary. For your consideration.

Anyway, about the script: well-written, feels tailor-made for Scorsese & DiCaprio, and the role Jonah Hill plays also seems written just for him…but the whole thing's basically worthless. Who needs another story about a guy who could and did have everything he ever wanted - most of which is cars, mansions, drugs, and hookers - then squandered it? And all paid for with illegally-acquired millions. Am I meant to have any kind of empathy or sympathy for this character? Why would I fucking bother?

And it's all true, of course. Well, the people are real and these things happened; naturally it's fictionalized and dramatized and sanitized and satirized for our protection…which kinda makes it worse. Because I simply don't see the point in celebrating the choices of a person who was incredibly good at what he did but fucked it all up by being stupid about it. Why does such a talented broker feel the need to engage in any sort of wrongdoing? Why destroy oneself and one's marriage with drugs and infidelities? Is it so fucking difficult to just be happy being insanely rich?

That's a question I suppose I'd like to be able to answer for myself, but setting it aside, there is nothing new or interesting or compelling about this story. We've seen it before, I didn't care then, I don't care now. The movie may very well be quite entertaining, in the hands of the talented filmmakers involved, but this shit ain't worth my time.

Also: nearly all the female characters are sex trophies or hookers. Those who aren't have very little screen time or impact on the story. A head-shaking disappointment.

Man Of Steel

Maybe it’s because I saw Pacific Rim so recently, but I can’t help noticing a few basic similarities here: powerful entities battling each other with fists, inter-dimensional travel, family members sacrificing themselves…

Plot and story details aside, why do these fights always involve people or creatures tossing each other around and smashing into things clearly made of material less durable than they are? For example: Superman punches a guy - some heavily armored Kryptonian dude - and yeah, that probably stings a bit, but then the guy hurtles through the air, and through a building, which crashes down on him...then he gets up and punches Superman. So the hurtling and crashing didn’t really faze him, and I wouldn’t expect it to - but apparently Supes wasn’t thinking that far ahead.

Both these movies are like that. It looks nice and all, the expensive effects achieve their money’s worth, but it’s essentially meaningless, and devoid of dramatic weight. Which is really what I’m looking for. I won’t get that, however, when Kevin Costner’s Jonathan Kent only dies because he and his family were too stupid to take the dog with them when running from a tornado, and he has to go back for it. The same thing nearly happened in Twister; did they not see that flick?

I have to admit I was never much interested in this movie, as I’m just not into the comic book spectacles - but I don’t object to them either, so I’m bound to see them eventually. The major draw for me, however, turned out to be the biggest disappointment: Michael Shannon as General Zod. The guy’s a compelling performer, but the character had nothing going for him. Apparently on Krypton, everyone’s genetically designed for some particular purpose; he got military training. But why does Krypton need a military? Whom are they defending themselves from, or at war with, besides each other? Maybe that’s why he’s so pissed off all the time - he’s got fuck-all to do but pick a fight.

Amy Adams didn’t have much to do either, but is always interesting. I did like Russell Crowe. And Henry Cavill, wherever he came from to star in this, was totally ripped. A decent actor, too, but let’s be honest, most of what he had to do was look super.

Maybe the next movie, which involves Batman, and possibly Lex Luthor, will have a better focus on story and character - because they are mere humans, and ol’ Kal-El can’t just go around super-punching normal folks like that. It also has Wonder Woman, but he probably won’t be smashing her into buildings and gas stations...probably. Hollywood does stupid things sometimes.

This is what happens...

It would be cool if this were a real album and these were real songs. But they aren't. Just a silly thing I was thinking about.

Band: Little Lebowski Urban Achievers

Album: Brandt Can’t Watch

1. Phone’s Ringin’, Dude
2. Over The Line (Mark It Eight)
3. Must Be Exhausting
4. Sasparilla
5. Not A Golfer
6. Calmer Than You
7. Stay Outta Malibu
8. Already The 10th
9. Strong Men Also Cry
10. Her Life Is In Your Hands
11. Let’s Go Bowling
12. The Dude Abides

Warm Bodies

It’s adapted from a book, and tries to be a different kind of zombie movie. I respect it for that, and it actually succeeds in some ways. If only it paid as much attention to being logical, and properly dramatic, and less sexist, as it does to being different. Then I wouldn’t be so dissatisfied.

Zombie flicks have a ton of leeway when it comes to logic. It’s easy to ignore any questions about how the world came to be in this state or how the zombies function, and just accept it all. The problems arise when the story doesn’t support its own properties, and isn’t told in a way that makes any sense, and the characters do stupid things for no good reason.

The main character R - a walking dead guy who doesn’t remember the rest of his name - meanders around an abandoned airport with thousands of other corpses, and at one point comments (through voice over) that he feels lost, literally; he’s never been in this part of the airport before. We then see him shuffling across the tarmac to a plane; inside is a hoarder’s paradise of found objects, among which he sits to contemplate his existence...oh, okay, this is his home, of sorts...but wasn’t he just lost? How did he get to the plane? This sequence plays out like he’s discovering something new but really it’s where he feels most comfortable. Not good storytelling.

And regarding that plane: later, when real live living girl Julie is there with him, because he dragged her there to prevent his fellow dead folks from eating her, they listen to vinyl records on a player with what power source, exactly? She’s there with him for several days, where there is certainly no working plumbing? Earlier he smears his own blood on her so the others won’t smell that she’s alive; he only puts a little bit on her face and this masks her entire scent? They decide it isn’t safe for her to leave for several days, she asks what there is to do around there, cut to them taking a joyride around the runway in a convertible...um, if you have access to a FUCKING CAR that FUCKING WORKS then you can FUCKING LEAVE the airport in relative safety! Fucking duh!

And guess what? That’s exactly what they do! But only later, after they’ve bonded...early on, through his narration, R laments his trouble speaking, how he’s barely able to manage one word in conversation with his corpse friend M, but as soon as he meets Julie he manages short phrases pretty well, almost immediately. Yes, part of the premise of the movie is that he gets better, gradually, but this first leap is a bit farfetched. Yes, I know it’s silly to use the word “farfetched” on a zombie movie, but every movie needs to establish the rules of its world and then adhere to them. It has to make sense within the context it’s created. This movie fails in that at every turn.

Then there are the sexist issues. It’s borderline pass/fail on the Bechdel test, but this is a version of Romeo & Juliet, which would probably fail as well, so we don’t have to get too serious about that...however: Julie, and her friend Nora, are supposedly portrayed as capable young women who’ve learned to survive and kick ass in the apocalypse, yet need to be saved every time they’re in trouble. R sees Julie from across the room as his gang of corpses attacks her gang of fully armed teenagers and twenty-somethings (who fail miserably to protect themselves despite the earlier implication they are well-trained) and is immediately smitten. Now, he really only falls for her because he kills her boyfriend (whom she never mourns for even a moment) and eats the dude’s brains, which in this movie means acquiring his memories and feeling his emotions. Again: zombie movie, leeway, notion accepted. But that isn’t a good reason to be in love.

It gets worse, though, because of course, she spends time with him and sees he’s a nice dead guy and falls for him as well; her love actually helps to heal him and he stops being dead anymore. I’d say sorry for the spoiler but it really isn’t one, as the whole movie leads up to it and is not a surprise nor is it meant to be. But anyway - this is another example of the abhorrent boy-sees-girl, boy-wants-girl, boy-gets-girl storyline that’s been prevalent in movies for, say, several decades, if not a century or more. What about her? What does she want? No, she is never forced to do anything against her will or even mistreated in any way - but the focus is always on him and what he wants, and she consistently views things from his perspective without manifesting her own. She isn’t even slightly perturbed by the fact he killed her boyfriend, which she supposedly didn’t know at first but simply concluded and quietly accepted at some point without discussing it until she’s in her underwear and wrapped in a blanket and alone with the cute zombie.

So, yeah...the movie has some great concepts but everything falls apart because it isn’t smart enough to support them with logic and realism. It may be a world of zombies, but it’s supposed to be a world we recognize, plus zombies. If the drama is structurally weak and people are doing stupid things, it ain’t gonna hold up.

Pacific Rim

When this movie first hit theaters, I asked a couple friends of mine who’d seen it opening weekend if it was about anything more than giant robots punching giant monsters...because, based on the trailer, that seemed to be the extent of it. One said “There’s some emotional stuff too, kinda” and another said “No, but so what?” They’re both right, I guess, if you want to look at it their way.

In all honesty, I can readily support a movie being mostly spectacle and not bothering much with substance - though I do wish the substance weren’t so lame and familiar. At least try to do something new with it. And yes I do expect more from Guillermo del Toro because he’s made such astoundingly brilliant and beautiful movies before; seems like he could at least bring a taste of his talent for story and character along for the ride.

But he doesn’t do that here; it’s purely a visual escapade and in that realm it doesn’t disappoint. He really understands how to use such an enormous scale to his advantage, so all the scenes of monster-bashing look fantastic. If only the storyline didn’t feel like a remake of Roland Emmerich’s awful Godzilla, I might more fully appreciate what Pacific Rim is trying to be: a big-budget celebration of the low-budget Godzilla movies and all sorts of other fun influences. But with the nerdy scientist guy trying to resolve the giant monster issue intellectually (though Charlie Day is always fun to watch), said monster attacking a city yet somehow being able to hide in it, and turning out to be pregnant...too many parallels to brush off easily. There’s even an Independence Day speech - and I’m not even sure why, as only two or three of the hundreds of people who heard it actually had anything to do with saving the day, or could have.

References and remembrances aside, the story is weak, doesn’t make much logical sense, hits the same false notes repeatedly, and in the end is essentially useless screen time. Why is a flashback broken into two pieces when the supposed revelation of the second piece is something we already know? Why do the pilots of the robots (Jaegers) punch and toss around the monsters (Kaiju) instead of utilizing more kill-sure weapons right away? How do the Kaiju evolve & adapt to human weapons & tactics when they only show up one at a time after arriving from another dimension? Why does one pilot stick around to get blown up instead of using an escape pod like other pilots do later? Why are the pilots even IN the Jaegers in the first place; with all this mind-meld brain-share memory-link technology (drifting) for the pilots to work as a team, no one could figure out a way to operate them remotely?

Never mind, doesn’t matter. Ignore the fact there’s no true protagonist. Ignore the failure to have more than one significant female character, and for that one to be something other than consistently demure and constantly rescued. Forget about being interested in anything other than colossal creatures and contraptions tearing each other to pieces. Truthfully, I can’t say it any better than this Honest Trailer by Screen Junkies. They pretty much nailed it.

Supposedly there’s a sequel planned. I guess I’m not surprised, but I can’t say I care. I just don’t get excited about these things when they disappoint on an emotional level, even if the big-time action is enjoyable. It’s possible to have both. I get into it when there’s both. Bring me a movie that succeeds in all aspects and I’m on board.

Monsters University

Some time ago, I heard Pixar was making a sequel to Monsters Inc. and I thought: why? Later I read it was actually a prequel, and I said aloud: will that work? Eventually I saw the full-length trailer and answered myself: no…not gonna work. So I had major objections to this movie even existing long before seeing it.

First of all, I'm not pleased with Pixar being in the business of producing Disney-fied sequels. Toy Story becoming a trilogy was appropriate, and I love it - because it has artistic merit. I defy anyone to compile a convincing list of attributes supporting the artistic merit of Cars 2…and I'm one of the apparent minority who truly enjoy and appreciate Cars the first. So when I heard they were making another Monsters, I was disappointed. The quality of their storytelling has suffered lately - I had been looking forward to Brave, which turned out to be a wreck of good intentions - and putting all this effort into sequels & prequels is part of the reason why. It's tough to do good work when spread so thin.

I realize there's already tons of garbage online about this, but I have to address it, and by the time I'm done I sincerely hope you'll see why: "You've been jealous of my good looks since the fourth grade, pal." Mike's throwaway line from Monsters Inc. Implying he & Sully have been friends since they were kids, or least knew each other…yet the trailer for Monsters U clearly shows them meeting in college, as does the film itself. Apparently the filmmakers tried to include a scene of them together in fourth grade, just to explain the line, but it didn't fit into the story - which I'm sure I would agree with. Then they decided to simply ignore it and hope people wouldn't remember Mike had said that…a very stupid move, obviously, as the issue is rather glaring with the contradictory information right there in the original film and the new trailer. So, in a lame attempt to quell the backlash, the director claimed "since the fourth grade" is a monster expression that simply means "for a long time" and shouldn't be taken literally. Please. Nice try.

Why is this such a big deal to me, those of you both sane and rational may ask? Because it isn't about the detail itself, or the timeline, or the Monsters canon…it's Pixar's dismissal of all that. They just left it, like it doesn't matter. But it does matter, and fixing it would have been easy if they'd kept at it. Look at the problem: in Inc, Mike and Sully knew each other in fourth grade; in U they meet in college. Can't change Inc, so change U! Who says they have to meet for the first time here? You wanna know how to address a throwaway line? With another throwaway line! Mike arrives on campus, sees a crowd of admirers around Sully, says to Randy: "Sullivan…that guy's been the bane of my existence since the fourth grade." Or something like that, only better.

One simple line of dialogue would:

• Imply they've known each other, or have at least known the other exists, but have not been friends.
• Set up their forthcoming relationship, how they compete and don't get along.
• Be a callback to the line in the first movie.
• Have avoided anyone needing to complain about this!

It all comes back to my issue with Pixar not making the same effort in terms of story that has made their earlier films so amazingly good. They saw a problem, they tried to deal with it, they dropped it. They dropped it. That's just wrong, folks. Pixar is better than that. At least they used to be.

Finally, the biggest issue with this film, and yes, I'm still talking about objections formed well in advance of actually viewing it: a prequel in the Monster world was the wrong choice. And in such a big way, I am absolutely bewildered as to why I haven't seen more disapproval. Maybe I'm avoiding it because it's just too sad. Anyway: what was the major change in Monsters Inc? What was it the entire story served to teach the main characters, and everyone else in the monster world? Scaring is wrong. Laughter is more powerful than Scream. And even though lots of people are going to have to change jobs, we're still going to save the world and make everybody happy. Great lesson, great movie. Now here we are years earlier, so what is nearly every single character in the story focused on? Scaring! Which we know will prove to be not only insufficient but emotionally destructive! How can anyone, having seen the first movie, watch this one with empathy for the characters? No one who truly cares about such things, that's for sure.

I realize some people may think I'm taking all this way too seriously. But it's all about how storytelling works, and that's what I do. It's what I am, it's what I am about. If I don't take that seriously, I don't exist. And it seems that I do actually exist, so, as long as that remains apparent and true, I'm going to take all storytelling seriously.

I won't, however, get into whether or not they created another timeline blunder by bringing back the Yeti in a scene with Mike & Sully, even though they don't seem to know each other when they meet up in the human world in Monsters Inc. - because one could argue they don't specifically not know each other, or maybe the Yeti was banished soon after this and they only met that one time instead of working together for a while…it's messy, and isn't as much of a problem as the whole fourth grade issue. It's even acknowledged on the commentary, so, I can let it go. Yes, I can let things go.

Moving on.

Having actually watched the movie, now - and confirming every conclusion I'd reached prior was indeed correct - added to the negative impressions are the lack of development in Randy the college student becoming Randall the villain (they covered the basics but he needed a bigger part) and not enough being done with the fraternity/sorority competitors, whom we're told are skilled scarers but never really shown much of what they can supposedly do. Remember the old adage, show don't tell…

I'll tell you one thing, though: Pixar is still far and away the best in terms of artistry with their animation - and even though the story here isn't what it needs to be, they made the most of it and made it work. It is funny, and fun to watch, and the voice performances are excellent as always…they're still phenomenal filmmakers, they just need to get back to pounding out that story until it's right. Because when they don't, there's just not much depth or meaning to it. And that's always what I'm looking for - from Pixar, from any and every movie I see - a story and an experience that feels complete. It all has to work together, to create that sense of wonder and amazement that only a great movie can.

Oz The Great And Powerful

So I've been busy, lazy, ill, and otherwise preoccupied for a while, thus never posted the worst of what I saw in 2011...a list long forgotten at this point. Oh well. We move on. Perhaps the film at hand will make this year's list?

Probably not. Sam Raimi's Oz The Great And Powerful isn't quite bad enough to be awful, but isn't anywhere near good enough to be…well, good. The biggest problem? It's too simple. It's dumbed down. It's Disney PG, which means it's aimed at all people of all ages and therefore doesn't want to burden anyone's viewing experience with things like complex character motivations or emotional resonance. No, better to keep things basic...oh and don't forget the cleavage; there must be plenty of cleavage.

All three female leads are treated with equal disrespect, but the most damning image was the easiest to find.

Anyway, typical Disney crap aside - and not to pick on Mila Kunis, whom I actually like a lot and consider an underrated actress - this movie is somewhat miscast, the talented Mila included. She tops the list, actually, as the person most wrong for her role. She's just not good here, but she never had a chance; the two polarizing attitudes assigned to her character don't play on her strengths as a performer. Her witch Theodora is either super-sweet naive or genocidally raving, without much reason behind either sentiment. Kunis has more depth than that, and plays such depth very well; trying to express such a thin coating of emotion just comes across flat…she's actually too good to portray something this one-dimensional, so she fails at it. Not her fault, say I.

Michelle Williams is good, Rachel Weisz doesn't have enough to do, Zach Braff is totally wrong and rather annoying...Franco is fine though his character's too shallow, and yes I realize the guy is meant to be selfish and superficial - I'm saying that's all he is, until he grows as a person and learns to care about people blah blah blah we all know protagonists have to change…but throughout the story these are the only things that drive him. All his actions are based on simple emotional states and it just isn't enough to propel an entire narrative.

Enough psychological talk; let's get technical. The first twenty minutes is sepia-toned academy ratio, 1:33 to 1, or your basic square-like TV-shaped image, until Oz the man arrives in Oz the land and then color appears in widescreen 2:35 to 1. All of which is acceptable, it's a gimmick, I don't mind, I can go with it…except when watching this on DVD, on a regular old TV, it's twenty minutes of a tiny box taking up only half the real estate of the useable screen. Could they not encode the disc to play this section full screen, then go to the normal letterbox mode when the movie does? I know they can. I realize lots of people have giant 16:9 HD flatscreens, and I'm sorry my lack of finances has kept me in the dark ages for so long, but seriously, don't crop the image to half its size. And yes I tried adjusting it using both my DVD player and TV, but all they can really do is zoom in, which results in a plethora of pixellation, so…it's just stupid. That's all I'm saying.

You know what else is stupid? 3D. Yeah, I'm one of those people who thinks a movie should draw a viewer into its world with compelling characters and emotional truth, not a fake visual design the human eye can't properly contemplate. Even putting aside how it looks, it invariably changes the way the story is presented - I can always tell when a movie I'm watching in 2D has been directed to be in 3D, because the camera is constantly moving through things, or stuff is flying past it, or worse, something is thrust directly at the viewer, straight at the frame…it's like the movie is screaming "Hey look at this! Aren't I fun?" Ugh. Spare me.

As for the film's appearance otherwise, there are a couple expensive-looking sets but mostly it's expensive-looking CGI, some of which works and some doesn't. The compositing between the actors and Green Screen Land is often shoddy, Finley the Monkey looks awful and is lousy animation…yet the China Girl is an astonishing display of artistry, in the subtlety of her performance and how beautifully she's blended into the environment, both the real physical sets and the created backgrounds. Typically a film of this size and budget has several different FX houses working on various aspects of post-production; one can presume the disparity in workmanship is a result of those hired to handle the China Girl being way, way better at what they do.

So like I said near the beginning, the movie isn't awful or awe-full, but was definitely worth watching to see how the story was handled. And I'll say, between Disney and Raimi: not very impressively. But after all the junky Spider-Man nonsense and the utterly terrible Drag Me To Hell, I don't expect much from Sam the man anymore. Still, I might be cajoled into eventually checking out whatever he does next. We'll just have to see where the wind takes us.