Hey folks, Harry here... I radically disagree with Massawyrm on THE WEATHERMAN, and didn't get to see LEGEND OF ZORRO or SAW II... And as for his brief scatalogical look at BLOODRAYNE - well, when review the work of Uwe Boll, it's hard to stray from Toilet Bolls, I mean Bowls. Here ya go...
Hola all. Massawyrm here. Well, it seems few in the industry can keep their minds off the downturn at the box office this year. Hell, even those wishing to break into the industry can’t keep their minds off it, as evidenced by the numerous discussions I had at the Austin Film Festival this weekend. And everyone, yes everyone has a theory. Most of those theories involve the movies being bad. “The movies are just bad this year. Worse than last year.” Bullshit. Last year with huge box office numbers people were saying the same thing. And you can’t call this year bad. As I look back on what everyone is calling bad I’ve gotta call Bullshit. 2005 won’t be remembered as being bad. It’s the year of Batman Begins, The year of the one good Star Wars Prequel. The year of War of the Worlds and Serenity. The year of Domino, Sin City, The Devil’s Rejects, A History of Violence, Unleashed. The year of Land of the Dead, The Amityville Remake, The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Assault on Precinct 13. The year of Lord of War and The Constant Gardener. The year of Hustle and Flow and Crash. The year Americans got Oldboy and Layer Cake. The year of Kingdom of Heaven. The year of Million Dollar Baby and Cinderella Man. Now I know many of you will argue with this list – some of the names on this list that is. But argue with all of them. I dare you. There’s films on that list you love, every single one of you. There’s films on that list you own, will own and will enjoy for years to come. Now, tell me again how bad a year it is. I haven’t even gotten to the smaller films that have gotten great praise. The Broken Flowers and the Good Night and Good Luck’s. Tell me again how bad a year it is.
No, I’ll tell you why this year is struggling. Look at that list again. What do they all share in common. Hope. They all lack hope. Even the few in that list that offer some hope wrap it such blatant, unrepentant suffering that you sometimes have to slog two hours through depressing drudgery to see the guy win a boxing match at the end.
This year, in the real world, we watched as one of our most beloved cities was washed out to sea. We watched as a war over half the country thinks was a mistake climb to almost 2000 dead. Almost every leader of the political party in power is under investigation, being indicted or considered by most to be ineffective, or worse, incompetent. The economy in this country is in shambles, with many of us making less and less – those of us that still have jobs, that is. This country watched horrified as woman’s life was argued, dissected and ultimately politicized before she was starved to death/allowed to die. This is a time when this country needs hope. We need movies that send us out of the theatre forgetting about all that. There’s a reason the cinema flourished during the great depression and there is a direct correlation between the arts and economic downturns. People want to feel better about themselves. People go to the movies for that. With this country’s mood sinking deeper and deeper into a steady depression, what does Doc Hollywood have to prescribe? Mindless forgettable fun, crap fare and really great, but really dark films.
But there were five films that were honest to god breakout hits – films that weren’t considered to have under performed or end a long running and highly lucrative series. Two were remakes of beloved time honored films and three were originals. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The Wedding Crashers. Hitch. The Longest Yard. The 40 Year Old Virgin. Why did these films hit while great films like Kingdom of Heaven, Cinderella Man and Crash went relatively unwatched? Why? Hope. All these films made us laugh, made us feel good and most importantly, gave us hope. Even if it was silly, dirty joke filled hope. They made us forget. For two hours we felt good again, like we’re supposed to.
Now many of you are probably asking what the four films I’m reviewing have anything to do with any of this. Many of the talkbackers have already jumped down to post about my “masturbatory introduction.” Well, these four films are part of the problem. The best among them is forgettable family fare. The worst, well, it’s Uwe Boll. But in-between them is a film that perfectly exemplifies what I’m talking about – it’s a film that is part of the problem. That film is The Weather Man.
The Weather Man
The Weather Man is a depressing, melancholic, pill of a film, the ultimate thesis of which is about coming to grips with the hopelessness of your own life. Yeah. That’s gonna play. That’s what we need right now. A film about a weather man who barely understands his job, his family and his place in the world. He’s divorced, his son gets molested, his daughter is morbidly obese and uninterested in the world, and his father has cancer. Does it have a happy ending? Nope. Does it make you laugh? Barely, and only at the depressingly quirky characters. Is it even worth your time at a free preview screening? Not a bit of it.
Sure, they’re selling it as a comedy – but it’s not one. It’s akin to a two-hour version of the first 15 minutes of Joe Versus the Volcano, without achieving half the style. It’s a king downer – pornography for the clinically depressed. Three hours later and I’m still depressed by the sheer hopelessness of it. While I certainly won’t accuse this film of being badly made, I will say it accomplishes nothing but serving as one hell of a buzzkill.
I see what Gore Verbinski is doing here, really I do. He’s trying to move out of the genre pigeonhole he’s managed himself into (by making three very good to great genre films, which includes the only good J-Horror remake thus far) and trying to move into more serious, potentially Oscar-worthy fare. And he’s done so by attempting to make a James L. Brooks/Alexander Payne film without ever managing to capture the magic inherent in a James L. Brooks/Alexander Payne film. You see, no matter what James L. Brooks or Alexander Payne put their characters through, you still get the unmistakable feeling that they really love their main characters. Even the most dickish, seemingly irredeemable of characters always get themselves a satisfying ending after their redemption. Gore Verbinski never seems to love his protagonist David Spritz at all. He simply seems to enjoy throwing milkshakes at him – literally and metaphorically.
David Spritz is an empty suit and a smile, a nearly soulless vacuum of a man. And as this movie draws to a close, he’s still an empty suit and a smile. Just now he knows it, he acknowledges it. And it seems to say “Hey, what’s wrong with empty suits? We’re people too.” Yet, there seems to be an overwhelming sense of schadenfreude to The Weather Man. It’s as if to enjoy it, you have to feel better about yourself simply by the fact that you aren’t nearly as bad off as David Spritz. And me, personally, as both a critic and a person, I just can’t get into that. I kind of like David Spritz – but I would have liked him better had he actually done a little more about his life. But he doesn’t, and the movie manages to depress the audience worse than anything I’ve seen in recent memory.
I hate this movie, really I do. I certainly can’t hold it against anyone for liking it, but I’ll sure as fuck never watch it again. Sure, I know, not every experience at the movie theatres has to be joyous or hopeful. But god damnit, it should never be this fucking depressing, not when it serves no purpose, nor has any spiritual call to action. But if you’re the type of person who enjoys - dare I say the pretentious word once more?- a bit of schadenfreude with your cinema, and don’t mind seeing a film that is mostly unresolved, then you just may like The Weather Man. For myself, however, it ruins a really good streak by a really talented director.
Saw 2
This is about as mediocre as horror films get. While certainly leaps and bounds above the hysterical tragedy that was the third act of the original Saw, Saw 2 still suffers from many of the same issues. What strikes me most about these two films is just how amateur they seem. Man deride the original Saw for the inexplicable addition of the Danny Glover character, yet there’s nothing inexplicable about it. Danny Glover’s character is the only way the writer could conceive of introducing Jigsaw’s lair in order to show us the “mad genius” behind his plots. That, and well, it ate up time that we didn’t just spend in the room with Elwes. Now this is one of two thing: amateur or lazy – and nothing about the Saw films seems lazy. There seems to be a genuine passion behind making these films, so lazy’s out and amateur it is.
Saw 2, however, shows more of a ranked amateurs approach. Of course, rumor has it that this is another of Lions Gate’s infamous serial killer swap scenarios in which they find a script they like that has nothing to do with one of their properties and adapt it to be a sequel. This happened with disastrous effect with American Psycho 2. This time it actually works. Saw 2 is a much better film than the first. It’s never really laughable, doesn’t hinge on a twist and actually delivers as a solid, watchable slasher film. But that doesn’t make it particularly good.
You see, despite being a straight forward slasher film, the filmmakers felt the need to – you guessed it – throw in a twist anyway. And that’s where the amateur tag comes back to haunt them. Because this film did not need a twist. None whatsoever. But we get one. Like the cheap, crap ass prize at the bottom of the cereal box you were gonna buy anyway, the twist to Saw 2 just falls quietly right out into the bowl, and bite after bite it draws nearer until you bite down upon it unexpectedly and exclaim “Man, I was actually kind of enjoying this cereal!” Twists are played out. They’re a dime a dozen these days. Why, when you have a perfectly good film, would you go for the cheap gag to shock the audience rather than hit them with solid, straight forward story telling? I know, I know – the send the audience out in shock. Okay, fine. Unfortunately this film is about 5 years too late for that. Now you risk sending the audience out annoyed, or worse, pissed off. No, this twist isn’t as implausible as the one in the first film, but it’s far more unnecessary. The idea was solid before they had to overcomplicate it.
And that’s what really chaps my ass about this series. Poor writing and limp directing has left one of the most original horror villains in the past few decades out to dry. That’s right, I said it. Jigsaw, conceptually, is brilliant. He’s not a single-minded psychopathic killer. He’s not out for revenge. He’s not trying to get back his gold coins. He’s cracked. He’s a guy who looks around and sees so many lives truly unlived and envies them – it’s the life that inoperable cancer has robbed him of. But he wants a legacy, he wants to wake people up to the lives they’re pissing away, and nothing will shock a person to live a full, rich life like a near death experience. Most importantly, Jigsaw is dying – he hasn’t much time left. So his measures have to become more and more extreme – the number of people involved in each game has to get larger and larger in order to wake up as many people as possible. This isn’t the type of guy who’s supposed to taunt the police like some dime store novel killer – he doesn’t have that kind of time. There’s a lot of people to save and every step closer the police come is a step closer to him failing at waking up the whole world. It saddens me to imagine what Jigsaw could have been in the hands of a truly competent genre writer, or hell, in the hands of one of the “Masters of Horror”. Could you imagine Wes Craven’s Jigsaw? Or del Toro’s? Or Lucky McGee’s? Could you imagine a series of films in which we truly get to experience the drama of a new character’s life each time as they struggle to find what it is they have to live for and see just how far they’re willing to go, without all the cop on the trail of a serial killer bullshit? Sure, there are parallels to Se7en, but John Doe specifically picked people he knew would succumb to their sins – Jigsaw doesn’t. He picks people he thinks he can save. Or at least he should. Unfortunately, the Saws miss the point they address entirely.
But if there is one bright, shining spot to Saw 2, it’s Jigsaw himself – Tobin Bell. Saw 2 is Bell’s Wrath of Kahn, the time when a talented character actor who never got any respect was given his time to shine. Unlike its predecessor, which deliberately hid Bell from us so we could have that BIG TWIST, he owns the sequel. This is where we really get to sink our teeth into Jigsaw and Bell performs admirably, even under weak writing. Bell adds such a devoted, sad depth to Jigsaw and really becomes the one thing worth watching – really illustrating the reality Jigsaw lives in. He doesn’t delight in killing – he delights in saving people, in forcing them to confront their demons head on, all the while pulling for them to win, but ending up sorrowful when they lose. This is that one great role that I hope gets him more work, because even while sickly and dying on screen, he has more energy than any other handful of actors in the two films put together.
Of course, this is all subtext. On the surface we spend more time with mostly lifeless characters whose backgrounds are never properly fleshed out enough to understand why many of them are even there. I mean, there are characters in this film that only serve to up the body count – and that’s not what the Saw movies are supposed to be about. They’re supposed to be about confronting your inner demons, about whether or not you have the strength to grab hold of your life with both hands. Instead, Saw 2 proves to be about the body count and giving Tobin Bell the screentime he deserves. Other than that, it’s not a bad film if you like this sort of thing. Saw fans will love it, as it is far superior to the first (not exactly a Herculean task), but those who despise twist films will end up about as pissed off as you can get.
There’s still hope, though. Given the right script and director, I think there’s still a great Saw film to be made. It’s an idea they’ve totally missed the point of thus far and could lead to the first time in history that a third film in a series without a doubt actually dwarves the previous two. Of course, it hasn’t happened yet, so I won’t hold my breath. Although, I’ve got twenty bucks that says there’s going to be a third film anyway. Let’s hope they get it right next time.
Three Words about Bloodrayne
Yup. It’s shit.
The Legend of Zorro
Okay, I tip my hat to Martin Campbell. He got it right this time. I had some minor issues with The Mask of Zorro, first and foremost the fact that they treated Zorro as an adult’s action hero. He’s not. He never was. Zorro was a product of the golden age and one of the great heroes of serialized film. He was a hero for children, the Mexican Lone Ranger. Looking back through history, there’s not a decade since the twenties that the silver screen went untouched by Zorro’s blade, meaning that there’s not a one of you out there that didn’t get the chance to grow up with Zorro as your hero. Zorro was one of my first heroes, along with the Lone Ranger, Indiana Jones and Luke Skywalker. Later in life I would trade those heroes in for the darker, slightly damaged heroes – heroes like Han Solo, Wolverine and Batman. But for a time, I wanted to grow up, wear a mask, and vanquish villains at the end of my sword.
This time around, martin Campbell manages to capture that spirit, that magic of my youth, and brings Zorro to the screen in all of his serialized glory. This is a rated PG Zorro, one chock full of outrageous acrobatic stunts, heaps of swordplay, and despicable villains who just stop short of twirling a mustache. And yet, at the same time, he manages to make a family film that plays well to adults, letting them in on the fun with serious themes and innocently adult situations. The Legend of Zorro plays around with a lot of the same themes as The Incredibles, without quite managing to gain that kind of immortality. It’s a funny movie without being overly goofy, it’s a sweet movie without being saccharine, and it’s a fun movie without sullying the true spirit of Zorro.
But it’s not great. It’s simply fun and there’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s being sold wrong. It’s being sold as more of adult fare with a kid when really they need to be telling people what kind of a family film this is. This is a film for fathers to take their sons to, a film that introduces young boys to the wonder that is pulp heroics, a film that families can share and enjoy together and just have fun with. A film like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which also went improperly sold. Frankly, I see more kids brought to bloody horror films than I saw at this screening, and there’s just something sad about that. Zorro is a hero for kids and The Legend of Zorro is just exactly that. Too bad the marketing execs didn’t seem to get that. This film is going to come and quietly slink away.
But if you’ve got a little boy in your life, or are yourself prone to becoming a little boy at times, I can really recommend this for some fun viewing. It’s good old-fashioned pulp at the movies and a solid entertainer. Of course, it’s a few days later I can only remember how much I really liked it – so it’s only really recommended to those who can appreciate this sort of thing or just want some mindless fun. Anyone looking for a killer action film or a smart adult film will have to look elsewhere. This is fluff, the best kind of fluff to be sure, but fluff nonetheless.
Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. I know I will.
Massawyrm
I get no kicks from champagne, mere alcohol doesn't phase me at all...
