Category: Movies

At the Movies: Monster House (in “Real D”)

I should be getting ready for bed, but I’m “keyed up” after finishing some school work and I wanted to posta little something about the movie Monster House, which I saw with Will on Monday. Annette had seen this with Will last Friday or Saturday or so and she spoke highly of it, but I was a little bit dubious. For one thing, I just sorta figured another kid movie; for another, Will (okay, and me too) wanted to see the 3-D version– or, as it is apparently called, “Real D.” For another, I was kind of tired and, I dunno, looking more forward to nap or maybe a beer than a movie.

Well, I gotta tell ya: go see this thing if you get a chance, and for God’s sake, go see it in the “Real D” if you can. I’m not interested in writing a summary of the flick, especially when there’s one right here. But a couple of thoughts:

  • Without a doubt, this is a movie filled with surprises pretty much from beginning to end. When I saw the trailer, I thought that this would be a pretty predictable and simple flick. Not so, not so at all.
  • This is not a movie for little (less than about 7 or so) kids. There’s some scary shit in this flick– not King Kong scary, but people getting eaten and stuff scary.
  • I was amazed at how cool the 3-D stuff was. This isn’t the whole red/green über-cheesy technology of old. It’s some kind of digital thing (though it does require glasses) that, in this movie at least, was mostly subtle but also employed during some exciting chase kinds of scenes quite effectively. So, unlike the segments on SCTV that featured a 3-D House of Beef or the last 3-D movie I saw– one of the Spy Kids movies, I think– this one was part of the story, looked great, and didn’t give me a headache.
  • And again, this is a reason to see a movie in the theater. I think they should all be 3-D. Oh, right, Real D.

This Week at the Movies

I don’t normally write movie review-type posts, but we had the experience of seeing the X-Men: The Last Stand in the theater and The Squid and The Whale at home the other night. Here are some thoughts, complete with spoilers, so if you don’t want to be, ah, spoiled, quit reading.

First, an extra credit question: name the Academy Award winning actress who is in both movies (see the end for the answer).

Okay, first the biggie, the X-Men movie:

  • This was a “family movie night” since we had rented the first two earlier in the winter and they seemed to go over well. I think this third one was perhaps a little more intense than the other two, but Will seems to have survived.
  • On the plus side: the effects are cool, shit blows up real good, it’s damn loud, etc. In other words, it’s certainly a big theater movie, which is perhaps why the box office has been so big. But I was once again reminded of just how unpleasant it can be to go see a movie like this in the theater. The place was packed and so, of course, sitting behind us was a family of idiots narrating the film to each other. It wasn’t so bad during the loud parts, but the quiet parts could have been a bit more, well, quiet. Anyway, if I were to do it over, I would have seen this at about 11 am on a Tuesday instead.
  • I’m sorry, but I could never get over the fact that Kelsey “Fraiser Crane” Grammer is in this one. Fraiser I mean Grammer plays Dr. Hank McCoy (what does this say about mutants and/or the likes of me that about half of the mutants are doctors or professors?) who is the U.S. Secretary of Mutant Affairs (or some dumb title) and whose mutation is that he looks like a big blue gorilla— though, I will grant you, he does turn out to be a bad-ass fighter. The voice is bad enough; what makes matters worse is that Fraiser –oops, I mean Hank– spends much of the movie wearing a suit and tie and even reading glasses. So basically, Grammer’s portrayal here is exactly like a big hairy blue Fraiser. I half expected to see David Hyde Pierce make a screen appearance as a mutant who looks like a yellow turtle or something.
  • There are more mixed metaphors here than an eskimo fire fighter watching a rattlesnake convention in St. Peter’s Basilica. You’ve got the whole mutant=terrorist kind of thing, the idea of viruses, diseases/disabilities that aren’t really diseases/disabilities, etc., etc., etc. Best not to think about these things too much and just enjoy shit blowing up and Fraiser as a blue gorilla.
  • An example of a bad metaphor: I heard some NPR report where one of the writers was claiming they were trying to make the mutant’s right/choice to a decision to being “cured” analogous to women’s rights/choice to have the choice of abortion. Which is why, said this writer, there were protests outside the clinics where mutants were being vaccinated. This just doesn’t work for me. I mean, it seems obvious to me that if you’re a mutant and you have a cool mutation (you can control the weather, fly, shoot flames, turn stuff to ice, make the world blow up, etc.), then you don’t want to be cured. On the other hand, if you have a mutation that sucks (you kill anyone you touch, you’re a big blue gorilla, etc.), then you’d want the cure. I don’t see how this is a metaphor for the more complex decision about abortion.
  • Given that about half the characters get killed off (the professor, Scott, Mystique, in the end Jean, etc.), it seems to me that there must have been some sort of contract negotiation where the actors and the suits got together and the actors said something like “Okay, okay, OKAY already. We’ll do one more. But JUST one!”

I have much less to say about The Squid and The Whale. This is most certainly not a family film– we watched this the other night after Will went to bed. It’s a very good movie about a washed-up novelist who is in the midst of an ugly divorce from his wife, who just happens to be an up and coming writer herself, and also about their two sons who have quite different perspectives on the whole business. It’s one of those comedy/drama flicks– a dramedy? a comrama?– that really was kind of “Oscar bait” in the way it was performed and filmed and paced. Now that I’ve seen it, I’m kind of surprised it didn’t get any nominations– at least I don’t think it did.

And, once again, it’s an example of a movie not to see in the theater. Since it isn’t damn loud and since shit does not blow up real good, this is the kind of movie that can really only be ruined by a family of idiots seated behind you. Unless seen at a more “serious” movie venue like the Michigan Theater, this is the kind of movie best experienced on DVD in the comfort of one’s home. Go rent it if you haven’t seen it yet.

Extra credit answer: Why, it’s none other than Anna Paquin, all grown up.

Random thoughts on The Oscars (TM)

Before I get out the door and go to school….

  • I thought Jon Stewart and his whole Daily Show-like approach to the show was great. Hollywood needs a good smart-ass.
  • We actually saw two movies that won Oscars this year: Crash and Wallace and Grommit. Go figure. Both of them were really good, for obviously different reasons.
  • Personally, I don’t think people voted “against” Brokeback Mountain as much as the running was probably split three or four ways and Crash came out on top. But I don’t have any unique insight on this.
  • We haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain; actually, we almost went to it, but we went and saw Goodnight, and Good Luck instead (also a great movie). To be honest, I’m not that interested in Seeing Brokeback Mountain, though I’m sure we’ll rent it at some point. This is probably obvious, but it has nothing to do with the “gay thing” for either me or Annette. Rather, it has more to do with the “love story” “cowboy/western” thing, two film elements that really are not on my “must see” list. I mean, if it was a hetro couple getting it on in a love that was “denied” in some way, I’d probably never see it.
  • I thought “the academy” has a lot of nerve bitching about DVD sales (which they did directly and indirectly in a couple of different segments last night) when a) the vast majority of movies nominated for the Oscar this year don’t really demand the “big screen,” b) movies that really do look good on the big screen are typically passed over for Oscars (The Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, King Kong okay, okay, King Kong did win a bunch of awards for special effects), c) actually “going” to the movies is an increasingly unpleasant and expensive experience, and d) DVD sales are what is saving Hollywood’s dropping box-office numbers collective ass right now.
  • Thing #1 to remember if I ever win an Oscar: be sure to thank my wife and son before I thank anyone else.
  • Thing #2 to remember if I ever win an Oscar: if I win and then go up on stage with the person I won with (a co-writer, a co-producer, etc.), then I either want to talk first or I want to make damn sure that the first person doesn’t ramble on so long as to cut the second person off.
  • It is indeed still “Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” Afterall, Phil Collins beat out “Blame Canada” a few years ago….

Lots and Lots of Brokeback Mountain Parodies

Remember the “Brokemac Mountain” parody I posted a couple of weeks ago? Well, via my blog surfing this morning, I came across this site with links to dozens of parodies of Brokeback Mountain. I think the Top Gun parody is especially funny.

If want a bit of sophisticated analysis about these “mash-ups,” check out this entry from the excellent if:book blog.

What’s so funny?

After we got home from a lovely party at Andre’s and Stephanie’s place last night (and by the way, thanks for a great time, thanks for all the scotch, sorry about that glass– I’m not sure if it was Jim knocking into me or if I just dropped it or what– nice pictures, I guess I missed the blood gushing out of the kid’s leg, and there’s nothing like a night of excess to re-start a proper eating and exercise program), we went home and watched The Aristocrats. We rented it Friday and had intended to watch it the night before last, but we were too pooped, and we had originally intended to watch it Sunday or something. But we got home early enough and Andre was so enthusisastic about at the party (and on his blog), we decided to watch it last night.

We were disappointed.

Most of my loyal readers are probably familiar with the basic premise of the movie, but just in case you’re not: the movie is a documentary/comedy about an infamous dirty joke comedians tell each other, in which a family goes to a talent agent, performs some disgusting act (it inevitably involves incest, blood, beastiality, etc., etc.), and then ends with the same basic punchline: “The talent agent asked ‘what do you call the act?’ The man answered ‘The Aristocrats.'” The comedy comes in the middle portion of the joke, and this is where comedians try to out-do each other in terms of coming up with disgusting things that make up the act.

Now, I should point out that I don’t think neither Annette nor I were offended. I mean, we knew what we were getting ourselves into. And I like dirty jokes just fine. But I dunno, to me, this just didn’t live up to the hype.

Don’t get me wrong– it’s definitely worth a rental, and there were moments that were pretty good. And as a documentary, I thought it was pretty effective and interesting, a sort of “behind the scenes” look at the craft of comedy. But I guess I found it more “interesting” than “funny.”

I suppose it’s just a matter of tastes. Andre talks on his blog about how he thought Anchorman didn’t live up to the hype, but I still will sit and watch that when it crops up on HBO (which it does quite frequently). If you ask me, that’s comedy….