Top Gun (1986)

This week I made up for a blind spot in my cinematic history.  I saw Top Gun for the first time.  Yes, I think I'm the only child of the 80's who hadn't seen it yet.  Oh, I knew all about it.  I knew Goose died.  I knew that it was packed with terrible 80's music.  I knew he traveled the highway to the dangerzone.  And I'd seen practically every scene at some time in my life.  But I had never actually seen the whole thing from start to finish.

And now that I have I feel confident in saying this: Top Gun is a fairly bad movie.  The story is forgettable, giving no real reason to care about either the characters or the "Top Gun" competition.  The music is horrible and dates the film rather badly.  The editing is among the worst ever, as the film makers tried to use stock footage of the jets to fit their story, with the result that often an F14 that is supposed to be behind the MIG is for a moment pictured in front of it.  And there are plenty of little editing issues like that.

But the biggest issue by far is the acting.  I swear, when Tom Cruise was acting all broken up that Goose had died I thought I'd have to fast forward.  Either that, or use a spoon to induce vomiting.  Honestly, I have no idea why Cruise made such a big splash about that era in Hollywood -the man had as much talent for acting as a cat has talent for singing (thankfully he has improved at least a bit).

So what we are left with is bluster, posture, and a bit of awkward charm, all set to music we'd prefer to forget ever existed.  Oh, and those actors had NO idea how to play volleyball.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic value: 3/10
Technical merit: 4/10

Overall: 4/10

P.S. I wonder how many young men signed up for the navy thinking they'd be in Top Gun, and ended up swabbing the deck for 4 years?

The Expendables 2 (2012)

The premise of The Expendables (and thus also the sequel) is get as big a cast together of the greatest action stars of the last 30 years and have fun.  Plot is non-existent and acting is clearly not a priority.  Everything is secondary to the cast, and having the cast blow things up spectacularly.

The Expendables was fun.  Stupid fun, but fun.  The Expendables 2 on the other hand, is stupid and boring, with little to recommend it.  It ought to be great, but the cast is reduced to bad and tired one-liners that reference their glory days, and the action is simply "hero shots" of our cast as they fire heavy weapons and kill the bad guys.  Explosions are frequent, the body count is huge, but the action is simply dull.  Without a plot to care about, tons of action simply becomes mindless drivel.

The idea of having an action movie not take itself seriously is great.  The execution on this one is terrible.  The word "Expendable" means superfluous, something that can be destroyed without loss.  Nothing could be a better description of this movie.

Entertainment: 4/10
Artistic value: 2/10
Technical merit: 3/10

Overall: 4/10

Sharknado (2013)

This post is dedicated to Matt.  Thank you for drawing my attention to this "movie," and thus "enriching" my life.

"You know, I have one simple request.  And that is to have sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!"  So said Dr. Evil, and we all laughed, because such a thing was clearly ludicrous and stupid.  It was funny.

Now the entire concept of stupid has a movie.  That movie is Sharknado.

From the people that brought us such stellar and cerebral films as Sharktopus (it's a shark!  It's an octopus!  It's both!) and Dinoshark comes Sharknado, the latest travesty to challenge Plan 9 from Outer Space for the honor of being Worst Movie Ever.

It's a tornado!  It's sharks!  It's a sharknado!

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I did not watch Sharknado.  I did, however, watch a few clips and read a summary.  The clips were pretty much all the action stuff with the titular tornado-composed-of sharks.  From what I saw I'm fairly confident that I don't want to injure my brain by watching the "plot development" or "character development" parts.

This then is what I saw:

• A guy was skeetshooting sharks out of the air with a pistol.  100 pound sharks, knocked out of the air because they were hit by a pistol round.  Not anything about the previous two sentences makes the least bit of sense.
• There was a shark biting through the roof of a car to get at the people inside.  As though a shark's first thought wouldn't be "how can I get back in the water?"  No, of course if a shark was yanked out of the water by a tornado and thrown on a moving car it's immediate reaction would be "I need to get to the chewy center of this Chevy."
• A guy used a chainsaw to slice a shark in half lengthwise instead of being eaten.  Giant shark, hurled at 100 mph at some dude, but because he held a chainsaw it was instantly sliced in half.  Cool?  No.
• Once on land, the sharks were crawling toward people.  I'm not even kidding.  Those same people were seemingly powerless to get away.
• If someone fell down, sharks would land on top of them to eat them.
• Sharks in the tornado could control their movement and fly.
• Sharks exploding when contacting a powerline.
• Sharks roared like lions.  'Cause sharks have lungs to do that.

Somewhere out there a guy wrote this mess.  Then some other guy decided to spend money to make it.  Actors destroyed their career by being in it (not that they had any ability anyway, as this movie ably demonstrates).  And now people everywhere are passing up the opportunity to see good movies to watch this stupidity instead.  That's just sad to me.

And they are making a sequel.  Sharknado 2.  Evidently it gets sharknadoier.  Perhaps it could have ninja sharks or something.  Inevitably there will be the spin offs Earthquack (an earthquake causes the ground to become ducks!) TigerWave (a tsunami carries a ship full of deadly tigers into the heart of the city!  Splash Roar Argh!) and Volecano (it's an eruption of lava!  No, it's an eruption of small rodents that will ruin our lawns!  Oh the humanity!)

Entertainment: no.
Artistic Value: sharknado. (that means none)
Technical merit: they should be ashamed.

Overall: j out of pink.  (meaning: there is no way to give a serious rating to this.  Avoid at all costs.)

P.S. The question of the day: if movies have to compete to be the dumbest just to get people to like them, have we concluded that our culture is bankrupt and decadent?  Is art dead?

Man of Steel (2013)

I've been mulling over Man of Steel for a few weeks since I've seen it.  This one has really gotten a split reaction from the Superman fans out there, and I wanted to take time and consider what my impression really was.

So here it is: I'm a fan of Man of Steel.  It's not because the writing is fantastic -it's not.  It's full of too-obvious metaphors, over-dramatic speeches, and one-note forgettable characters (even most of the main ones).  I mean, Man of Steel begins with what amounts to a reverse virgin birth, and lays on the Messiah complex rather strongly in almost everything that follows.

Nor did I love Man of Steel for the settings.  Smallville is basically "typical small midwest town #4," and Metropolis is simply a collection of nondescript buildings.  But I guess that's ok, since both are pulverized to non-recognition anyway.

There are other things not to love.  There is nothing memorable in the acting, nor remarkable in the way the story is put together and executed.  And since I hate shaky-cam cinematography during non-action scenes I was not impressed with the camera work either.

But let's not forget what the movie does right.  This is a film about Superman, and it shows us a vision of the character not seen before yet still consistent with him.  I loved how we were shown a young Clark just beginning to discover his powers -and that he is terrified by them rather than happy.  I loved how Clark is shaped by the vision and wisdom of two fathers, trying to hold their ideals in tension as he faces a threat to what he holds dear.  I liked that Lois Lane tracked down Superman's secret identity.  I loved the way Superman's flying felt new and fresh and powerful, despite the fact that we've seen flying heroes in many other films now.  On the other hand, the special effects often suffered due to some poor execution (like how he jumped unnaturally on the oil rig) or simply because at times far too much was happening for the audience to understand the action.

Overall I just plain found the movie fun.  It was a fresh take on the mythos, and an enjoyable beginning to what hopefully becomes much more.

Entertainment:  10/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

The Killing (1956)

Stanley Kubrick demonstrated time and again that he was a director far ahead of his time.  In 1956 he directed The Killing, a crime drama about a group of men with a plan to steal $2 million at a L.A. horse racing track.  It comes off feeling a bit like Ocean's Eleven, only with real character development and little comedy.

The Killing was like no other film before it, and few since have done its techniques as well.  Sure, there were plenty of crime dramas, and plenty of gangster films, but this one is a breath of fresh air in what was already becoming a stale genre.  Kubrick accomplished this in two specific ways.

First, the story is told in several parallel lines.  One of the conspirators will be shown doing his part of the heist plan, and then another will do his part, beginning prior in time to what was already seen.  It's not nearly as confusing as it sounds, and a narrator is a huge help as he continuously gives what times certain events happen.  Of course, even though this technique works well for the film it does come across a bit overdone.  I mean, there is only so many times you want to hear that the horses are getting ready for the 7th race before it feels old.  Other films have copied this technique Kubrick used in The Killing, but here it feels fresh, original, and very pivotal to a proper understanding of all that happens.

The second truly standout feature of The Killing is the character development.  Each of the conspirators has a different motivation for being involved in the plot, and these motives are all quite believable and natural.  They are thieves, sure, but not because they only greedy or evil.  These seem like real people, with real problems who approach this heist as a real solution.  As a result, you find yourself rooting in a way for these criminals.  They are smart and cunning, yet human and failing.  The audience can relate to them, since they are not simply denounced as wicked "black hat" bandits from some simplistic western.

I loved The Killing.  I liked the understated and largely unpretentious acting.  I thought the plot moved along with a fresh and lively pace that kept me engaged.  And I loved how the end seemed to reference the Humphrey Bogart masterpiece from 1948 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

This one is a hidden gem, a film I'd not heard much about prior to seeing it.  But it really is a great and unforgettable film that deserves a place among the movie greats.

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical Merit: 8/10

Overall: 8/10

The Great Escape (1963)

On March 24, 1944 several hundred prisoners in the German prison camp Stalag Luft III put into action a plan they had been working on for over a year.  This was a new camp, one boldly called "escape proof" by the Luftwaffe.  But you see, they hadn't counted on the ingenuity of their RAF prisoners.  And that night 76 prisoners managed to go through their tunnel and escape the camp.

The Great Escape is the Hollywood adaptation of that story.  Clearly, many things are changed in the story. James Clavell, the screenwriter, obviously had his orders to make certain changes to make the story appeal to more than just British audiences.  So Steve McQueen, for example, has quite the starring role as one of the three Americans in the movie who never existed in real life.

The result of it all, inflated history as it is, is nothing short of a brilliant movie delight.  Everything, particularly the writing, is simply marvelous.  The first half of the film plays out almost as comedy, as the prisoners outwit and outmaneuver their German captors.  The second half then is pure action adventure, as the 76 who managed to get through the tunnel do their best to make it to freedom.

Of course there are the iconic elements involved; the music, the image of Charles Bronson crawling through the tunnel as he digs, and of course Steve McQueen bouncing his baseball around in the "cooler."  If you have never seen it, you must; The Great Escape is both amazing entertainment and unbelievable history.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 7/10

Overall: 9/10

P.S.  It has its drawbacks.  1.The ending is weaker than the rest.  2. Some of the actors are not as good as the main players. 3. I think an opportunity was missed to make some greater artistic points in the midst of the action and wit.

In spite of whatever drawbacks might be found, this is still a greatly wonderful movie, one nearly impossible to improve.  Bottom line: The Great Escape is one of the most fun and watchable (and re-watchable) movies of all time.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

I love superheros.  I love movies.  The confluence of these powers renders me a geeky mess.  It's just a weakpoint.  I know that superhero films rarely are good enough to win oscars (aside from visual effects), but I love them anyway.

So what about Iron Man 3, the film currently smashing open the box office?  Simply put, this movie rocks, and may be among the better comic book films yet made.

I like Iron Man.  Of all the Marvel comics characters, he's one of my favorite.  I like guys who are more or less normal, who find ways to become a hero that doesn't rely on the dumb luck of being bitten by a radioactive bug (which is probably why my favorite superhero of all time is Batman).  In the Marvel universe, Iron Man is that guy -normal human with typical personality defects a flaws.  In the comics Tony Stark battle alcoholism and anxiety attacks; he never is presented to the reader as a perfect guy who can do no wrong.

All that said, Iron Man 3 gets Tony Stark right.  Even more so than the first Iron Man movie, the third really seems to get in Tony's head and understands him.  All in all, Iron Man 3 just might be as good a movie about Iron Man as I could have hoped.

However, it is not a film for fans of the Mandarin.  No spoilers here, but if you know your comics, and regard them as sacrosanct, what happens in the plot regarding Mandarin will leave you aghast to say the least.  But hey, we need to remember that the movie is not the book, nor should it be.  For the movie, what they chose to do with the character made sense and worked exceptionally well.

And the payoff is amazing, with the film culminating in a few great action sequences, including a terrifically filmed freefall/skydive rescue.

The acting is fine, though nothing too terribly outstanding.  Robert Downey Jr. clearly has fun playing his now-iconic character for the fourth time.  Gweneth Paltrow has a lot more to do in this one than in the second or in The Avengers, and she makes the most of it.  Sir Ben Kingsley has way more fun than he should be allowed to have playing Mandarin.  And Guy Pierce simply chews large holes through the scenery as Aldrich Killian.

The writing is great (for an action movie.  Shakespeare it is not).  It hits all the right tender/contemplative notes, then turns and throws one comedic zinger after another.  Plus, as I alluded to before, it managed to rather surprise me.  About 1/3 of the way through the film I said "This is a combo of both Extremis and The Five Nightmares."  At that point I thought I knew (as a result of knowing those Iron Man books) exactly how the film would end.  And I was wrong.  Very wrong.  But the plot still resolved itself in a way that did homage and justice to those classic storylines.  This is a rather large accomplishment.

All in all I enjoyed it very much.  And what else do we really want from the movies?

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 3/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 6/10

A postscript with SPOILERS:
Again, below there be a few SPOILERS -ye have been warned.


Ok, you know what bugged me far more than the whole "Mandarin is just a distraction away from the real bad guy" bit?  The bit where Tony was breaking into the Mandarin's compound with weapons he constructs out of hardware tools.  Know why?  The guy knows S.H.E.I.L.D. and all the other Avengers!  He needs help, he knows where the bad guy is, and all the other Avengers owe him a solid big time!  Why did he have to do this himself?  I mean, other than the fact that the movie is called Iron Man and not Avengers 2?