Archive

Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category

Recent movie round-up

January 5th, 2010 Diane 5 comments

Darin and I are still trying to see every movie that comes down the pike and even during Oscar-bait season we sometimes still have a hard time finding one. And forthwith, a short review of what we’ve seen at the multiplex recently:

  • Avatar: Blue indigenous people good, technological whitey bad. (Unless techie whitey is pretending to be one of the indigenous people, in which case he’s the best fucking indigenous person ever.) Go read this. Then this. And this. That’s how I feel about Avatar.

         Walking out of the theater I said: “We’ll nuke it from space. It’s the only way to be sure.” Because technological whitey wants “unobtanium” a LOT. Also: I saw floating mountains in World of Warcraft three years ago.

         Rated: Underwhelmed.

  • Sherlock Holmes: Ah, Robert Downey Jr. Seriously, he is currently the holder of the “Errol Flynn Memorial I-Can’t-Believe-I-Get-Paid-For-This” crown. I’m not sure what he’s doing is actually acting, but who cares? He’s having an awesome time. Some stuff happened in this movie, none of which I need to tell you about, other than Holmes and Watson exchanging banter. Not sure anything that happened was particularly Holmesian, but everyone appeared to enjoy themselves. I’m sure there will be a sequel and that you will not need to remember any of the plot points from this one.

         Rated: Fun!

  • Invictus: Walking into the theater you know how this one is going to end, and it doesn’t matter: director Clint Eastwood is going to make you feel stirring emotions, dammit. Which he does, often and with no small doses. The combination of real-life drama, crowd scenes, and stirred emotions is enough to kill you during the before the opening credits sequence, so you can imagine how you feel by the climax. For me this was a must-see, because in my book Matt Damon can do no wrong, and once again he’s solid here. Darin said that Morgan Freeman’s Mandela was the best non-imitation interpretation of a real-life figure since Langella’s Nixon, and I think that’s about right. Bring hankies.

         My question: Why has a sport as violent and in-you-face as rugby not made it here in America? N.B.: You do not need to understand or like rugby to enjoy this film.

         Rated: Exciting! Inspiring! Exhausting!

  • The Princess and the Frog: Now, this is what I’m talking about for family entertainment. Great songs! Feisty heroine! Joy! Sadness! Musical numbers! We loved this movie, although there’s a sad bit toward the end that really bothered the 7-year-old.

         Rated: Whoo!

  • Up in the Air: What you have to know is that I love George Clooney. I have no idea what the actual man is like, nor do I want to know. He is the current reigning holder of the “Cary Grant Memorial Of-Course-You-Want-To-Be-Me,-Even-I-Want-To-Be-Me” crown. And while I enjoyed him muchly in this film (as always), I think the film as a whole is deeply overrated. For one thing, it looked like TV—there was nothing that screamed “Major Motion Picture” about the story, the cinematography, or frankly the acting. For another thing, the story was nothing special. This movie has gotten so much love and so many accolades I’m wondering if we saw the wrong cut or something.

         Rated: Unexceptional

  • Fantastic Mr. Fox: Again: the Clooney Meister wins. This is a really fun animated movie about anthropomorphic animals and their hijinks. It’s been a few weeks since we saw it, so I can’t remember anything in particular about the script or the story I liked, but I know that just thinking about it makes me smile, so there you go.

         Rated: Foxy!

  • Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel: Yeah, we haven’t had a chance to catch this one.

         Not yet rated
Categories: Movies Tags:

Food, Inc.: the review

June 24th, 2009 Diane 8 comments

We went to see Food, Inc. last night—we are at the cornucopia section of the summer, where there are so many movies we want to see, yet instead of the three options I usually send Darin for our movie choices, I sent him only this one. It’s a documentary, it’s not a fun topic, gosh only knows how long it will be in theaters. So off we went to see it, and of course Darin ran into someone he knows. (This is a fairly frequent occurrence, honestly.) I did get my usual Red Vines, but Darin passed on the popcorn. Which, really, was all for the best.

Food, Inc. is sort of a greatest hits of current factory farming/industrial food complex criticism that we’ve read about from such writers as Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma), both of whom are featured prominently in the film. Their theses are, to logline it: We have become removed from the source of our food; if we knew what went into our food we’d demand serious change; it is in everyone’s best interest to be fully informed about what the food manufacturers are presenting to us.

The movie presents an overview of the major factors involved with the industrial-caloric complex: the political, the economic, the medical, and the environmental. The political, showing the toothlessness of the federal government (when the USDA can’t even shut down processing plants known to be producing unsanitary food). The economic, where food—by which I mean food “product,” or the crap that litters our stores—is made so cheap by the vast corn subsidies our government gives “farmers,” by which mean the multibillion dollar conglomerates like Archer Daniels Midland or ConAgra or Tyson. The medical, where there’s no debate about how our modern Western diet is killing us. The environmental, where the runoff from the CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, where animals are grown and live their entire lives in a cesspool of their own manure) is destroying watersheds, killing towns, and encouraging the growth of diseases like our old friend, e coli.

I also have to criticize the movie for sacrificing depth for breadth. For example, one section of the movie is the story about the low-income family who can afford dinner for a family of 4 at the Burger King drive-through (primarily because everything at Burger King is heavily processed food, dependent on the ubiquity of cheap corn). The family goes to the supermarket to find healthier, fresher choices and they simply can’t afford it. Broccoli is not deeply subsidized. Burger King is. The father is taking various medications for diabetes, the cost of which severely reduces their food budget even more. The younger daughter is now at risk for developing diabetes soon. The film gives us lots of statistics about the rise of diabetes in our country…but then assumes we know the connection between this food and the diabetes, because it sure as hell doesn’t explain it to us.

The clear culprit of our current food system is the corn subsidy. Surprisingly, the film doesn’t call for the subsidy to be ended (or at least severely changed). That may be the take-away they’re hoping we get from it, but it never says it out loud. Of course, maybe they’re worried about being sued about that kind of thing. The film does explain that, unless you’re Oprah and have the money to pay the team of lawyers to fight the Man, you’d better shut up and keep your head down, or otherwise the ranchers/Monsanto/other will sue you to kingdom come.

Many people say, If the price of food rises, people won’t be able to afford it! The answer to that one is pretty goddamn clear to me: we can’t afford what we’ve got going on now, and if people can’t afford it, it’s time to pay them some more goddamn money, isn’t it. (And stop making them spend most of their food budget on diabetes medications.) Our American way of life is not sustainable, and we have to rethink what our real priorities are here. If Food, Inc. gets people curious about the topic, so much the better.

§

If you are interested in this topic and don’t know where to start, here are some great books to check out. They’re popular science, meaning they’re written for normal human beings to read. (With the possible exception of The China Study, which has lots and lots of scientific studies and research for the biggest wonk to wade through, but you can still read plenty of stuff in there without going cross-eyed.)

  • Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.

  • The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

  • In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan. This is a good overview of the problems and issues confronting us in the modern food age and asks us to really think about what we’re going to do about it.

  • Food Matters by Mark Bittman. I like Bittman’s food writing for the NY Times a lot, and this book is another good overview of the issues we need to deal with, like, NOW about our the industrial-caloric complex. Plus: recipes!

  • Food Politics by Marion Nestle. This is an excellent in-depth investigation of what makes it to your plate and why.

  • What To Eat by Marion Nestle. After Food Politics so many of her friends said, “So what am I supposed to eat, anyhow?” Nestle then went into a supermarket and investigated what the hell is actually on the shelves. Wonderful reference tome.

  • Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People In the World by Greg Critser. Critser investigates where all this cheap corn came from (the Nixon administration) and the effects it’s had on our food and our health. If you want an explanation of what high fructose corn syrup is and why it’s bad for you, check this out.

  • The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. If, like me (being a good indoctrinated American), you said, What on Earth can we learn from the Chinese about nutrition, the starvation of whom we’ve been made guilty about for years? Well, this ain’t the Cultural Revolution and China exports food to us. (Think about that.) Campbell makes it pretty clear that the absolute first line of defense against what’s known as “the Western diseases” is what goes into our mouth. You can argue with his conclusions—but this is a pretty dense scientific tome and he’s published, y’know, actual scientific papers on these topics.

  • The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. Singer is a philosopher who specializes in the ethics of our food choices, which seems specialized and arcane until you realize it touches just about every single aspect of our lives. The book uses three families who have very different food philosophies (fast food, organic and free range food, vegan) as the jumping-off point to investigate where we get our food from and why it matters. I absolutely will not eat turkey ever again after reading this book (sorry, Aunt Lil, but no way, no how, am I eating turkey this Thanksgiving, or ever again at any other time). Singer is vegan but he doesn’t disparage the families who choose to eat meat: he investigates why and and where their food is coming from.

Feel free to suggest others in comments.

§

In my continuing quest to go vegetarian cut way back on the amount of animal products I consume (I’m sorry, I’m such a weenie, I’m just not a labels person), I have started made it my default behavior to search restaurant menus for the most vegan meal possible. That is to say: a salad without cheese as a main listed ingredient >> a salad with cheese >> a salad with fish >> fried chicken sandwich with slab o’cheese and mayo.

Holy God, it’s nearly impossible.

Seriously, play this game at the next restaurant you go to. Look for the vegetarian dish. Find the meal where you can easily remove the animal products and have anything left. When vegetarians complain about pretty much being offered green salad (and usually iceberg at that) or maybe some roasted vegetables on pasta, they are not kidding. There is such a huge range of vegetarian cuisine out there and the general public does not see any of it, unless they go to an ethnic restaurant, such as Indian or Ethiopian. (Many vegetarian entrees at Chinese restaurants are often cooked in chicken broth, so that’s a big ol’ No.) And there’s an upper limit, even for me, on the amount of falafel and hummus I can consume. Admittedly, it’s a pretty high upper limit, but a limit nonetheless.

No wonder people think vegetarians are odd: they’ve been crammed into the odd corner.

I’ve taken to using apps such as VeganXpress and VegOut to try to find someplace in the neighborhood to get something to eat. I think I need a few new ones to help me out. If you have any suggestions, leave ‘em in comments.

After the movie last night we went to Rock Bottom Brewery, where I played the “anything but iceberg lettuce” game—I have nothing against salads, salads are the best, I actually love eating huge gigantic salads now, but I don’t want that to be my only thing—and came up with… the Tex-Asian vegetable potstickers. Which turned out to be (more or less) samosas in a vaguely potstickerish wrap. Well, I guess it’s a start.

Categories: Cooking and Food, Movies, Politics Tags:

Updates: me, movies, and how much Lost rocks

April 17th, 2009 Diane No comments

In no particular order:

  • Much to my own amazement, since my decision not to drink alcohol because it’s interfering with my exercise plan, I have not in fact had any alcohol. There was one night I actually wanted to have a cocktail, but we didn’t have a lot of time and I did have to work out the next day, so I passed. Saying no to margaritas at La Fiesta is pretty goshdarned hard, though. They make a very tasty, and very deadly, margarita.

  • I know I need to post some pix of My! Amazing! Transformation!™. I need to get batteries for my camera. How lame of an excuse is that? And yet: oh so true.

  • My guilty pleasure these days: SecretTweet. I have no idea if these are real or not, but unless they start mentioning space aliens or something, they could be. This is the kind of thing that makes me appreciate my own life more.

  • Movies we’ve seen recently:

    • Sin Nombre: I don’t know the provenance behind this movie. I was looking for something to see and I used the Rotten Tomatoes score to come up with one. It’s a film in Spanish with subtitles about a family trying to get to US from Honduras, and a boy who’s part of a violent, territorial Mexican gang, how they meet, and what happens. The simplicity of the storylines and the tightness of the focus on the story I think shows it’s clearly a first film by a young writer/director, but he’s a very talented writer/director who is interested in issues that have no easy and clean solutions.

    • Adventureland: It’s a very sweet look at summer 1987 after a kid graduates from college before he starts grad school. I’m kind of disturbed that 1987 = historical flick though. I liked it, but it was a small movie. I’m also kind of tired of movies in which everyone’s shared experience is one that I have nothing in common with. At least it’s not as bad as when I watch a high school movie and might as well be watching an artifact from a lost African culture for all I have in common with it.

    • Sunshine Cleaning: An interesting indie film that suffered from one too few passes on the script. Yes, the scriptwriter is saying this. There was some really good material in here, but it needed…I don’t know. Some kind of oomph. And less randomness.

    • I Love You Man: Paul Rudd is every girl’s fantasy boyfriend—the fantasy boyfriend you could bring home to mother. (You save the other fantasy boyfriend for…well…you know.) It was definitely an enjoyable flick, and I remember very, very little about it, other than they didn’t do the obvious (and so overdone) thing of having Rudd’s character end up in a fracas with another woman, leading his girlfriend to draw the wrong conclusions! which I was definitely expecting.

    • Monsters vs. Aliens: Jesus, does Pixar make it look easy, and then everyone else makes it look so hard. I don’t even remember that much about MvA, other than I was impressed that Hugh Laurie can do yet another accent that isn’t his normal voice. Such a great title though. Man, such a great title.

  • There are simply no words to describe how much “Lost” has rocked since they, in the words of Entertainment Weekly, decided to “let the freak flag fly.” You know none of the actors signed up to be part of a sci-fi/ancient Egyptians/ghosts/assassins/time travel/comedy/romance/action/adventure spectacular, and you know just as hard that the writers/creators could give a flying fuck what the actors signed up for. They have an end date! They don’t have to spin this out forever! Let’s ROCK this town!

  • Darin says the official “Lost” podcast by Damon and Carleton is Teh Awesum, so you should listen to that. (I have zero time to listen to anything, I’m finding, so I have not added it to any of my iPods, but I laugh like a hyena when Darin recounts the latest one.)

  • And, as always: Actors, there are no small parts, only small actors. Michael Emerson signed for two or maybe three episodes. And he took over the entire damn series. You can do it, folks.

  • I thought “The Unusuals,” a new cop show on ABC, was going to be about a precinct of detectives in NYC who have very strange, minor superpowers. I like my idea for the show much better than theirs: It turns out to be a very boring police procedural about a bunch of cops Who Are Quirky. We took it off the list of stuff to be recorded during the first half hour.

  • I was mostly satisfied by the “Battlestar Galactica” finale—so long as they ended without Galactica, say, plunging into a nearby sun with everyone on board I was going to be okay. (The show was so dark for the last half season I honestly didn’t know what they were going to do.) As Ted Tally says, you have to give your audience a little glimmer of hope at the end. Just a tad. I think the BSG guys didn’t have as tight a grip on their stuff as the Lost guys do, but there was still so much wonderful stuff in there over 4 years I don’t care. (For example: if you’re going to start every episode with the statement that the Cylons have a plan, get a kilo of cocaine, lock all the writers in a room for the weekend, and figure out that damn plan before you go Season 2, okay? Remember that for next time.)

Categories: All About Moi, Health and fitness, Movies, TV Tags:

Oscars

January 22nd, 2009 Diane 7 comments

Quick hits on today’s nominations:

It’s good to see the Academy leaned strongly toward popular movies that people might have actually seen this year. At least a little bit. (C’mon, Academy: meet us halfway.) I know Benjamin Button got some ungodly number of noms, but I also don’t know anyone who’s seen it, whereas I know tons of people who saw, loved, and talked up Slumdog Millionaire. If they know what’s good for them, they’ll vote lots of awards for the little movie that has long stretches take place in Hindi. It’s the multicultural future, people!

Best Motion Picture of the Year:

  • “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
  • “Slumdog Millionaire”
  • “Milk”
  • “Frost Nixon”
  • “The Reader”

    Still haven’t managed to make it out to see Benjamin Button, which is 3 freakin’ hours long and needs to be the best thing since sliced bread to make me shoehorn that into a date night. Of the three we have seen— Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, and Frost/Nixon—the best far and away is Slumdog Millionaire, which you should go see right now if you haven’t seen it yet.

    Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role:

  • Frank Langella, “Frost/Nixon”
  • Sean Penn, “Milk”
  • Brad Pitt, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
  • Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”
  • Richard Jenkins, “The Visitor”

    Seen three of these as well, and Mickey Rourke is just as fabulous as everyone says in The Wrestler. As Darin put it, while watching that movie you don’t think about parallels to Rourke’s career, you think about the fucking character he’s playing. That said, Sean Penn was also pretty great as Harvey Milk, but Rourke’s career comeback story makes for much better copy.

    Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role:

  • Anne Hathaway, “Rachel Getting Married”
  • Angelina Jolie, “Changeling”
  • Meryl Streep, “Doubt”
  • Kate Winslet, “The Reader”
  • Melissa Leo, “Frozen River”

    We’ve seen one of these: Anne Hathaway, who was really good in her role, but the entire movie annoyed me so much that I refuse to think about it any more. This is probably Kate’s year—and it’s a Holocaust movie! Lesson learned: always listen to Ricky Gervais for career advice.

    Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role:

  • Josh Brolin, “Milk”
  • Robert Downey, Jr., “Tropic Thunder”
  • Philip Seymour Hoffman, “Doubt”
  • Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
  • Michael Shannon, “Revolutionary Road”

    Ha! They definitely want viewers’ butts in seats this year! Sorry, Josh, you were wonderful, but this is Heath’s year.

    Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role:

  • Amy Adams, “Doubt”
  • Penelope Cruz, “Vicky Christina Barcelona”
  • Viola Davis, “Doubt”
  • Taraji P. Henson, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
  • Marisa Tomei, “The Wrestler”

    Again, seen one of these, and while Marisa Tomei was very good in The Wrestler—that whole Oscar thing: not so much of a fluke!—I have no idea whose year this is.

    Achievement in Directing:

  • Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”
  • David Fincher, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
  • Stephen Daldry, “The Reader”
  • Gus Van Sant, “Milk”
  • Ron Howard, “Frost/Nixon”

    I actively disliked the direction in Milk, and I thought Frost/Nixon was just…stentorian. I think this is Danny Boyle’s.

    Best Animated Film:

  • “Bolt”
  • “Kung Fu Panda”
  • “WALL-E”

    Are they allowed to give it to anyone other than Wall-E? Check the Academy’s charter on this one.

    Best Original Screenplay:

  • Courtney Hunt, Frozen River
  • Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky
  • Dustin Lance Black, Milk
  • Martin McDonough, In Bruges
  • Andrew Stanton, Wall-E

    I’m happy to see Martin McDonough here, because In Bruges was a classic McDonough piece, contrasting outrageous humor and horrifying, wrenching violence in one of the more thrilling and affecting movies we saw last year. Of the three I’ve seen, I’d probably go with Milk, as kind of a consolation prize for losing everything else.

    Best Adapted Screenplay:

  • Eric Roth, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
  • John Patrick Shanley, “Doubt”
  • Peter Morgan, “Frost/Nixon”
  • David Hare, “The Reader”
  • Simon Beaufoy, “Slumdog Millionaire”

    Probably Benjamin Button, to make up for losing every other damn category to Slumdog Millionaire.

  • Categories: Movies Tags:

    Quantum of Solace: the review

    December 3rd, 2008 Diane 1 comment

    One Thanksgiving holiday tradition is that a whole group of the family goes to a movie and leaves the kids with other family members who don’t mind watching them. This year the tradition got changed a little: now all the kids go to a kids’ movie with their watchers, and the rest of us go to a non-kids movie. And this year that movie was Quantum of Solace.

    Let me start by saying: this movie is a lot better than you think…however, you have to go in thinking it’s going to be bad.

    It isn’t bad, exactly. The worst thing about the movie is that it thinks it’s smart, and wow is it ever not smart. There are movies that can get away with letting you fill in the details—Syriana, any of the Bourne movies—and you feel smarter because the movie didn’t lead you by the hand through every last bit. Then there’s Quantum of Solace, which lets you fill in the details to the point where you go, “That doesn’t make any fucking sense!”

    Too much handwaving, and what you have is an action movie where you’d better not think about anything for more than a moment. It has to have a story, or you’re just watching nice explosions and amazing fight choreography. Mind you: it doesn’t have to be a good story. I’m not expecting Shakespeare. I am expecting something where A –> B –> C, instead of A –> 76 –> @ –> Y9.

    For example: why does Bond go to Haiti? It’s the initial start of this adventure, and the explanation given by the MI-6 guy makes no goddamn sense, no matter how you look at it. It sounds very intelligent, but it’s complete gibberish. Bond has to go to Haiti because if he doesn’t, there’s no damn movie.

    On the way home we decided our favorite moment of the movie was (spoilers!) the bit involving Miss Fields. Miss Fields is sent from the embassy to babysit Bond in a hotel room and make sure he doesn’t get into any sort of trouble (like killing everyone he comes across, or destroying entire hotels, or any of the things we’ve seen him do up until this point). Bond of course does what he usually does with a pretty girl in a hotel room, and then he leaves the hotel room to get into trouble…and when he finally gets back to the hotel, Miss Fields has been cruelly dispatched (as seems to happen to Bond girls so very frequently). M then chastises Bond, saying that Miss Fields was murdered because of her connection to Bond and it’s all his fault.

    Uh, lady? Who in the hell decided that it was a good idea to send a pretty girl to babysit Bond in a hotel room the first place? Sorry, but that responsibility goes straight to the top, so get over yourself already.

    There are some incredible action scenes, and I can see why Daniel Craig is clearly going to die filming one of these movies some time before he finishes his contract. But if they don’t work a wee bit harder on giving us a story, no one’s going to freaking care.

    Categories: Movies Tags:

    Ah, media hype

    October 28th, 2008 Diane No comments

    Darin and I had our croissants and coffee at the local patisserie for breakfast* as we read the newspaper. Darin came across this item:

    Affable everyman Seth Rogen has built an impressive and lucrative career playing doughy slackers in movies like “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” but is he now tampering with his winning formula, important ingredients of which apparently are beer, weed and econo-size bags of Cheetos?

    Because Rogen’s next role is that of a superhero (the Green Hornet), and for the part he has lost a bunch of weight, the very thing that made him such an unlikely leading man.

    “Oh right,” Darin said. “He’s going to lose some weight and suddenly morph into George Clooney, only Jewish.”

    Okay, I thought that was hilarious.

    * We are so French and sophisticated, mais non?

    Categories: Movies Tags:

    Much more interesting

    September 8th, 2008 Diane 4 comments

    Got an unusual comment from Christina the other day:

    You were a joy to read… before twitter. Now, not so much. Seriously, have you not better things to say?

    Well, the Twitter is basically a way to have something to say, frankly. I suppose everyone who’d be interested in my tweets have probably added me to their own Twitter lists, so I could probably stop posting them here. (I’m DianePatterson on Twitter, btw, in case you’re looking for me.)

    But to answer your question: at the moment I haven’t found a particular raison d’être for this blog. Many of the things I’d like to talk about really aren’t fair for me to talk about much (for instance: my kids—yeah, I know, I win some kind of Mom-points for finally figuring that out) and others are just…well…

    Read more…

    My love for EW knows no bounds

    August 15th, 2008 Diane No comments

    Addendum to the issue that’s just hit the stands, with You Know Who on the cover:

    Entertainment Weekly’s early look at the new Harry Potter movie just a got a whole lot earlier. In a last-minute move, Warner Bros. has just announced that the studio is pulling Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from its fall lineup and rescheduled it for July 17, 2009. In an irony sure to set blogger hearts beating giddily, the film graces the cover of EW’s new fall preview issue, which hits stands today. EW and Warner Bros. share a parent company, but they clearly do not share, you know, important friggin’ information.

    Categories: Movies Tags:

    The Dark Knight: the review

    August 5th, 2008 Diane No comments

    All Christian Bale hotness aside, was this the world’s longest movie? Darin and I could have cut 40 minutes from this puppy easy.

    Good. Severely overrated. Better than some. But still: overrated.

    However, please note: Christian Bale is still hot (okay, that’s my review, not Darin’s). (And is it just me, or is there way more Aaron Eckhart than there is Christian Bale?)

    Categories: Movies Tags:

    Hancock: the review

    July 3rd, 2008 Diane 2 comments

    There are going to be spoilers. Just be warned.

    We saw Hancock Tuesday night, during one of the “pre-opening” shows (what is it with stretching out these opening weekends?), and I am still astounded at what a misfire that movie was. Because for the first half of the movie, it was interesting, it was funny, it was a fun movie experience.

    And then it falls apart. I mean, there should have been tape and staples and bolts on screen showing how hard it was to keep this thing together. And Darin and I can both point to the moment when the WTF? was written all over the script. It’s the moment I’ve seen hinted at in so many reviews, the big “twist.” I don’t know what they were thinking. “We need some kind of big Ooooh moment”? “We need to explain everything that’s happened”? “We hired Charlize Theron and we don’t know what the hell to do with her”?

    Did you know Charlize Theron was in this movie? ‘Cause she isn’t in any of the trailers.

    In case you don’t know the plot of this movie: Will Smith is Hancock, a superhero with an attitude and a drinking problem. He causes as many problems as he solves (and maybe even more). He rips up freeways to stop bad guys, he drinks quarts of liquor, and he’s grumpy to everyone, even little kids. And then one day he saves PR guy Ray (Jason Bateman, who once again proves he is the bar-none best straight man in the business, treating the looniness that’s going on absolutely seriously) from being hit by a train. Of course, the train is a complete wreck and once again Hancock has caused way more trouble than he’s saved. All of the lookers-on scream at Hancock, call him worthless, ask him what his problem is. But Ray thanks him and defends him to the crowd and then invites him over to his house for dinner, where they discuss how Ray is going to change Hancock’s image and make people love him. Ray’s wife (Charlize Theron) takes an instant dislike to the rude, hungover superhero, but Hancock finds himself attracted to her. Which is problematic, see, as Ray is the only guy who likes him.

    All good, right?

    Enter Ye Olde Plot Twist.

    I have a copy of Tonight He Comes, the screenplay that was developed into Hancock, to see if the twist was in there, and maybe it was explained better. I have heard such amazing things about this screenplay that I had to check it out. For one thing, it is dark. Everything about it is dark. The characters are all seriously unlikable. I can see why it would garner interest, and I can see why it had to be “developed,” because no way would this make it on screen.

    It doesn’t have the Plot Twist. Maybe it was the work of the second credited writer, Vince Gilligan. Or maybe it was someone else.

    (And here it comes, turn away now if you don’t want to know what the twist is.)

    Read more…

    Categories: Movies Tags: