Predators

Sometimes a movie falls off my radar: a combination of friends going to the theatre without me (I'm not bitter) and me being too lazy to rent/acquire when it is released for home consumption. It doesn't help that people were talking ill of Predators, although now that it's been so long my memory could be fooling me. For all I know, everyone loved this film and I was just jealous that I didn't see it, hence, skewing it into the negative. Or people really did hate it because quite frankly, nothing can compare to the originator, and it's upsetting that Hollywood keeps trying, with futility (i.e. AvP).

When you go into a show expecting failure, it's so much easier for said show to impress you. So long story short, this Predators entertained me. I didn't care that we got a modern day mix of stereotypes, it's cliched yes, but it's standard now. And I guess it does make a bit of sense: this alien race collects the finest specimens from all walks of cultures and plops them into a hunting ground for their own amusement. Here's a problem though: midway through the movie, as the humans are trying to figure out what's going on, they declare themselves "predators" and by extension, the actual Predators are now just "jerks."

Could the same be said for Alien and Aliens, of which I assume this Predator sequel is trying to rip-off in the naming scheme? In Alien and Predator, we have one alien, and one predator. In Aliens, we have a whole host of them; again, in Predator's we have a couple more, hence the pluralization. But if we are to presume that the title characters in Predators are actually the humans, can we think of the humans as the actual aliens in Aliens? I'm going to respond and say "no" and will have to say it's just an oversight (of many) on the makers of this Predator sequel. It's also nice that they pretend nothing else happened in the Predator line of movies: they make mention of Arnold's character but of none other (I think, it's been fifteen years since I've seen Predator 2). They certainly don't make mention of an underground ice compound used by predators as a hunting ground.

My biggest problem with this film are that the Predators are no longer interesting: they don't really bring anything new to the table here: they have the same old weapons, the big blades attached to their arms and the same gaping mouth-fang-things. I do give credit to them for updating the imagery: when the shoulder cannon fires off, it's a spectacle of light and sound, as it should be. They rip out spines and skulls in true form and use their various visions as you would think. Special effects just make them nicer on this go, but they certainly lack the substance of the '80s. Also of note is how the modern action star has changed, although this is obvious. Instead of the pillars of muscle crashing through the jungle, we have a larger group of smaller people here: their skill with their weapons is their true strength.

And that's it; this movie wasn't special but it wasn't horrible by any means either. I like that they keep it pretty simple; although some of the characters are ridiculous and the Predator's themselves seem to have been "weakened" there was some good entertainment value here.

Vacation

So the blog posts will be coming to an end for a couple of weeks as I go on vacation. I had planned on making enough posts beforehand to satisfy your hunger, but time just wasn't on my side. I'm sure there will be lots of post about when I get back, and I'll be sure to have some vacation-central ones too.

The Exorcist

Every so often you are shamed into watching a movie that has been around for longer than you've lived. The problem with that statement is that nobody shamed me into watching this movie except myself. In fact, Cale recommended it a while ago, and a light (not the light) went off in my mind: I've never seen this classic. Why in the world not? I'll tell you, it's scary.

And here's something that I need to address and admit. This may be more for myself (which is to say, everything in this blog is about myself), after all, acceptance is the first step. I joke around with my friends that certain things are too scary - mainly horror video games - but I've always hyped myself up with anticipation before things. This typically leads me to avoid such "things" such as games, or movies. I'll be sitting down in the theatre and start getting anxious on the level of terror that I'm about to subject myself to, and always in the end, I laugh at my past self for being so naive and weak. The same can't be said entirely for video games: Condemned is a game that I watched my buddy play but could never pick up myself. I tried the sequel on my own but couldn't handle it: bums jumping out of the shadows with lead pipes while I had an inferior weapon was too much. There are other horror games that I just can't do (Doom 3) but others that I've successfully forced my way into, such as the Resident Evil series. Movies on the other hand, are a mixed bag: depending on the subject matter I'll happily watch by myself, and if it gets a little too scary I can pop open my laptop and distract myself.

What am I so afraid of though? Everybody is "afraid" of the shock: that bum jumping out when you least expect it, or a loud noise placed perfectly with perhaps some incredible visual shock to go along with it. Those are givens. It's the psychological scare that is going to really get to you, and keep you up at night. As an example, The Fourth Kind really stuck with me; it's not a movie I could watch alone. I guess it goes along with what you're willing to believe; do I believe in aliens? Yeah. Do I believe in demonic possession? Not really, but I like the idea of believing in that stuff, which is probably why I psych myself out with them so much. The Exorcist deals with possession, AND exorcism, a double whammy of sorts. It seems to me that exorcism is a great subject for people to get themselves worked up about; people want to believe in this stuff. They almost always have "based on true events" attached to the project, this film not excluded (it never says so in the film, but it's based on a book based on true events). I just wondered how much of this film would stay with me as I tried to fall asleep later on. As it turns out - and as it always turns out - I had no problems sleeping afterwards, but that doesn't detract from the quality of the film.

Do I really have to talk about the greatness of the film? You know where it stands, and if you haven't seen it you really should. I feel shamed, as I mentioned earlier, because it's taken me so long to watch it. It was worth every second. As it turns out I watched a fairly recently cut version of the film (around 2000) which restored some elements, including the famous spider-walk scene and some more subliminal demon face pop-ups throughout the film. The slow buildup was really fantastic: you get proper character development and a huge setup. The slow burn is ever present here, and when something happens the significance is that much more profound. As for the scariness of the film: I won't question it. There's a reason my dad didn't let me watch The Exorcist as a child, but let me watch things like The Omen and The Amityville Horror. The latter films are great, mind you, but don't really hold a candle to The Exorcist. Seeing this when I was younger in all likelihood would have stayed with me and given me nightmares. Absolutely fantastic film making here.

Goodbye Michael

Michael Scott, that is. You may recognize the name - as its become oddly household - from the venerable series The Office (US, of course). I wrote a few months back about the series, and may have mentioned how it's gone into a steady decline but the fact of the matter is, I still watch it every week, and it's typically the first of the Thursday night NBC shows I take in. I skip 30 Rock now because it's aging way too fast and doesn't seem to be on track anymore, and I save Parks and Recreation because it is by far my favourite show on television and I want to savor the moment. The Office is pretty dependable in that you can't expect much from it anymore, and it's decent for a laugh or two. Plus, it's almost the end of the seventh season and you can't help but feel attached to these characters, as wretched as they are.

So Steve Carrell decides to leave the show; this is news that is not so much anymore. What is surprising is that his final episode wasn't the last of the season, or even the series. There's three more to go, and presumably an entire season afterwards. This seems hard to believe as the entire premise of the show was built on the boss' ignorance and social awkwardness. But over the years, the shtick can't be maintained and the writers made him into a good guy, albeit pretty clueless. But starting in the second season they drop the first hint that this guy is actually good at what he does. They detonate that bomb in the final episode as he hands over their top ten clients to one of the salesmen (who is the worst salesmen, so the character stays true to his clueless nature). And you have to think for one second: Scott is the best salesman at the company: he's been handling the top accounts all this time; you see glimpses of his brilliance in various episodes and hints dropping here and there - he was top salesman at the company two years in a row - and begin to realize his absence must not be taken lightly. On that topic, they bring in a completely ridiculous manager, played by Will Farrell, to really pound in Michael's "brilliance" and to let you know that yes, it can get worse, much worse.

One of the things that I've enjoyed about the series was it's lack of "event" episodes; that is, until Jim and Pam got married. The entire sixth season was full of hour long specials, making you realize you've lost the series you once loved. Before, episodes really put into the spotlight the mundane aspects of office life and it was funny. You had ongoing romantic tensions, but nothing that stood out: the series was a slow burner. It's a testament that you can put on a random episode and be involved right away. I'm sure there were more problems, and I feel like the seventh season has been bringing the series back to relevancy. There's been a few duds here and there, but for the most part it continues on and like I said, I'm glued to it every week.

I was going to question why the show would go on after Michael's departure but I want to keep it focused on the departure itself. I hope I'm not spoiling anything here (this should go up a full week after airing) for you, but be warned. His leaving scenes couldn't be any more well done, and is perfect. He is leaving to live with Holly as she takes care of her aging parents; he loves the company but knows and doesn't question his love for her. When she was first introduced seasons ago, they immediately had the perfect ending to the series (or his character, as it is). As he constantly tries to find true love in all the wrong places, you can't help but feel bad for him as you imagine a life of loneliness. And he leaves for all the reasons we would leave to, no matter how much you love your job; it's perhaps one of the few times we can relate to this character and specifically feel happy for him.

Others feel the same way, as Jim admits he's the best boss he's ever had. Jim has tried taking on leadership roles a few times throughout the show, only to fail time and again. Michael leaves with Jim's respect and an invite to lunch, something Michael has been after forever as he idolizes Jim; but he doesn't need to idolize him any longer. Throughout all the "horrible" things Michael has done you step back and realize he's what the office actually needed: someone who is there for them (in his own way), dependable yet unpredictable: you never know what you're going to see on your way into work. There were a few other great moments as well, including the removal of the mic. It's one of those rare glimpses into the premise of the show, as Michael asks the cameraman to let him know if it ever goes to air. I got a chill, thinking that we've been watching the past all this long as the show's seven years of filming has been going through editing, marketing and distribution to get it onto our sets. For half a second you can believe that everything you've witnessed has happened.

It will be interesting to see the next few episodes, and the next season. There will be a huge, gaping hole in the show that I'm not sure can be filled. I hope we don't look back in ten years and think about the terrible ending the series had, as we blame season eight for ruining our memory of an otherwise good show.

Movie Update - April 2011

Great month for movies!

• Troll Hunter
• V for Vendetta
• Tron Legacy
• Love and Other Drugs
• Your Highness
• Hannah
• Punisher: War Zone
• The Uninvited
• Dog Soldiers
• Where the Wild Things Are
• Forgetting Sarah Marshall
• Speed Racer
• Star Trek (2009)
• The Exorcist

Speed Racer

This is in regards to the 2008 film, not the original cartoon series. I know absolutely nothing (absolute is perhaps too definitive) of the original source material, and I can only imagine this has prevented complete and utter disappointment with this live action film. As it stands, I was surprised and perhaps taken a little aback at how much I enjoyed the racing here. What do I know about Speed Racer? The catchy theme song; the monkey, the Mach 5. They are culturally saturated concepts strung together by my imagination into plots that only exist in the dark recesses of my mind. One day I watched an episode of the original cartoon and I laughed, because it was so terrible. But I can see the appeal; we all have a special fondness for childhood loves, but for the person viewing these things for the first time as an adult - well - the results are not good.

Perhaps my friends were fans of Speed Racer, as that may be the only explanation on why I was the only one in my group who was even remotely interested in this film. Alright, there are probably others, as I do enjoy some terrible movies (no really, they are good!) from time to time. But what really set this movie apart, years ago, was the colour. I can only imagine a special effects guy manipulating a dozen sliders on a computer screen, just raping the image by sliding every single one to the right as far as they can, without regard for the end result. What we end up with is something that really makes your HDTV shine in a way conventional film can't, and makes you realize you are watching something with extreme style. For that, I give Speed Racer some points. It's consistent and hyper all the time; the visuals never cease to impress me. Speed Racer is almost prophetic back in 2008 as we are now inundated with films such as Sucker Punch, which focus more on atmosphere, style and imagery than anything else (although we truly have Sin City to blame). The difference between this and Snyder's digital landscapes is the infusion of colour and speed; whereas Zack loves slow motion, bringing out the minute details and movements of his puppets, and the Wachowski's speed things up, blurring objects to overwhelm you with urgency, wonderment and chaos.

Those racing scenes really are quite wild; as a long time fan of the F-Zero series of games, you won't have any problems seeing the inspiration here. The similarities are numerous; cars spin around into one another to knock opponents off track; cars explode (pilots safely escape here, of course) in a blaze; tracks make impossible shapes and defy gravity. It's really quite surreal if you've played the Gamecube version. The only thing differentiating them are the weapons: you don't have any in F-Zero and you sort of do in Speed Racer. In the upper classes of racing, they are quite illegal but in some leagues the vehicles are outfitted with them and you must be prepared to defend oneself. But the main mode of attack - which seems OK everywhere - is jumping. And spinning. Watching Speed bounce around the track in his car - off obstacles, other vehicles - was like watching some martial artist. It was elegant, awe-inspiring and scary. Anakin wouldn't stand a chance against Speed.

And the racing, described above, is about the only redeeming thing going on here, aside from Christina Ricci's deliciously cute close-ups and outfits. The plot is routine but there and quite acceptable. The acting is nonexistant, but that's not to say it was terrible: there are some big names here: John Goodman, Matthew Fox, Susan Sarandon, to name a few. What really gets me is Speed's little brother and the injection of juvenile humour into it; obviously this was a movie for kids but there were elements that were just so asinine it bothered me. I watch a lot of kids movies with my niece and I don't think she would appreciate what was happening here. And perhaps some of that humour is from the absurdity of an old cartoon series, and that's fine, but you're making a different beast here.

In the end, I feel like this would be a movie that I defend on my own, and to chalk it up to my odd likes. I'll give that to you for sure, as I'm surprising myself here. I step back and have to say, I enjoyed it.