A Netflix Round-up

It’s been a while since I’ve done one of these – I have a few months to catch up on. Some highlights:

Add another name to the list of brilliant entertainers who started to suck once they got sober (I’m looking at you, Trent Reznor). George Carlin: Life is Worth Losing (2005) is two hours of a crotchety old man complaining about society’s ills. It’s not even funny. 1/10.

Finally! A Jason Statham movie that’s actually pretty good! London (2005) follows the familiar formula of “Two strangers meet, sit in a room, have an intense and revealing conversation, and emerge better people at the end of the night.” It’s funny, it’s entertaining, and it’s not an action movie. 7/10, with the caveat that Statham’s normally closely-clipped scalp is covered with a douchey I-banker haircut. Bleh.

What do you get when you combine a talented cast with a script that goes nowhere? Burn After Reading (2008). It has it’s funny moments, but I felt like I wanted my two hours back at the end. J. K. Simmons  was the only bright spot. 3/10.

I’ve been hearing about Trainspotting (1996) for years and finally checked it out. I wasn’t a huge fan right away, although I thought it was better than that other popular drug movie, Requiem for a Dream. Then I realized that it was made in 1996, well before this generation’s drug movie craze. 7/10. Also, Ewan McGreggor, ftw. /dreamy sigh.

I cried watching North Country (2005). My father and his side of the family is from Minnesota’s iron range, and I remember him telling me how accurately the film portrays a lot of the attitudes that were prevalent in that area at the time. Also, who doesn’t love the idea of  a gorgeous woman getting uglied up for a role? Charlize, you’re a hero. 8/10.

I threw Sideways (2004) in the queue because of Thomas Hayden Church (hilarious in his Ned and Stacy days, not so much in this movie). After watching it, all I can think is that I really doubt that Paul Giamatti in khakis could ever score a babe like Virginia Madsen. 5/10. At least now I’m validated for not liking merlot.

The Wrestler (2008) was surprisingly good, considering its niche subject material. One friend I watched it with hated the unresolved ending (was that a spoiler? does saying that it’s unresolved ruin it?), but I thought it was well done. Incidentally, I googled Mickey Rourke after watching, and holy crap! I didn’t know he used to be so deliciously hawt! 9/10.

I am in love with Jason Segel after watching I Love You, Man (2009). The movie follows the predictable formula that I’ve come to expect from Paul Rudd’s movies, but it was hilarious and endearing, and really highlights the behavioral differences guys exhibit when around their girlfriends vs hanging with their buds. 7/10

21 Grams (2003) is one of those films with a disjointed time line involving three disparate stories that eventually crossover at the film’s climax. Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, and Benicio Del Toro are all strong actors, but the script is capital-M Meh. 3/10.

I’m always up for a film adaptation of Hamlet – Kenneth Branaugh’s is one of my fave movies. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990) might be one of the best, most creative re-imaginings ever (certainly better than that Ethan Hawke abomination). The film follows the forgettable title characters and the disorientingly existential conversations they have “in the wings” (outside of the scripted scenes of the play). Normally, I’m not that impressed “quirky” films, but Richard Dreyfus and Gary Oldman really bring a lot to the table. I’ve read complaints that the script should have never been adapted for film, but I still found it engaging and… fun! 9/10.

On G.I. Joe’s “Baroness”

I saw G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra this week.

That’s right, I happily paid my $8.00 to see this testosterone-fueled, explosion-packed, army-glorifying, SFX-heavy, mind-numbing, adrenaline-pumping tribute to boyhood. Well, at least I knew what I was getting into beforehand.

I have no comments about the movie’s plot, actors, or effects – my expectations were low, and I left the theater feeling like I’d been somewhat entertained (and to its credit, the film clocks in at just under two hours). However, there was one aspect of the movie that I can’t resist from ranting about: the generic, one-dimensional, dubiously-underdressed, tough-cookie female warrior, a.k.a. “Baroness.”

Here is a list of  strong, fleshed-out, femme fatales, with varying degrees of sexiness, hand-to-hand combat training, and knowledge of lethal weapons:

Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver)

Aeon Flux (animated)

Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss)

Fran (Final Fantasy XII)

Zoe (Gina Torres) – Firefly

Alice (Milla Jovovich) – Resident Evil

Ziyi Zhang will kill you gracefully

The Silk Spectre

Tasha Yar – Star Trek:TNG

Vasquez – Aliens

Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton)

River Tam can kill you with her brain.

Lightning – Final Fantasy XIII

The Bride (Uma Thurman)

Eowyn (Miranda Otto) – LOTR

Chun Li – Street Fighter games

Queen Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett)

Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie)

What makes these women enthralling characters? Personality. Rather than than running around in stilettos and alternating between “cruel” and “sexy” facial experssions, these women kick ass without taking any names. Many of them have intriguing backstories, or flawed personalities. They’re more than flat, generic place-holders for teenage fanboys’ spank fantasies.

[SPOILER ALERT]

“Baroness” (played by Sienna Miller) is a former civilian who gets brainwashed and turns evil. Somehow over the span of four years, she becomes a master of hand-to-hand combat and works her way to the top ranks of an evil, conspiratorial weapons manufacturing corporation. During that time she also meets and seduces one of Europe’s most promient physicists (who lives in a much nicer home than any researcher would ever be able to afford), a man so devoted to his research that fails to notice (until it’s too late) that she’s a key executive in a start-up global terror organization. Baroness eschews full-body armor and instead marches straight into the battle zone in a vinyl catsuit. She’s a complete bitch to her ex-boyfriend throughout the entire movie, never missing an opportunity to bust his balls, but she undergoes a convenient psychological breakthrough at the last possible second, has a sudden change of heart, and rescues him from being fed to the Big Baddie’s evil human experiments (which seriously pissed me off, because I was looking forward to her comeuppance). Miller flexes her acting muscle in this role, portraying a whole three emotions throughout the entire movie; through 80% of the film she plays  “smug bitch, ” and then elegantly switches to “not-nearly-remorseful-enough,” plus a few moments of “catatonic.”

“Baroness” is boring, one-dimensional, predictable, and unreasonably dressed, to boot. And it’s not as if any of the other characters are very well-developed, either. I can forgive “Scarlett” for being equally boring (but more smartly dressed), or Channing Tatum as the middle-America everyman, or even Marlon Wayans as… Marlon Wayans.   With “Baroness,” I’m annoyed that I’m supposed to accept this noncharacter as the “sexy antagonist” AND “sexy protagonist/love interest.” It just doesn’t work – there’s not enough material there for her to play two roles in the story! Give her fewer lines and make her a sexy, reticent assassin! Give her a bigger role and more personality! Give her a stunt double so she can do extra-cool fight sequences! Argh, just do SOMETHING!

Paramount, you f*cking suck.

Some Thoughts On Will Ferrell

Let me just get this out of the way now: I absolutely hated “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.” It was probably one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t funny; rather, it was nonsensical, non-sequitur, sophomoric, and boring. I understand it was supposed to be a farce of the 1970s swinger lifestyle and feminist movement into the workplace, but the plot failed to be engaging, and overall the film FAILED on pretty much every level (save for one exception: Paul Rudd and his “real panther” cologne made me chuckle).

In particular, Will Ferrell was just horrible. The humor of his supposedly-improvised lines was based on absurdity and/or shock value, not cleverness. From what I’ve seen, Will Ferrell’s style of humor can be reduced to the following few elements:

1. Saying something completely absurd in a deadpan manner (“They named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale’s vagina”).
2. Awkwardly trying to complete a task or emulate a behavior better-suited to a person of smaller stature; portraying a clueless man-child. (“Elf”)
3. Showcasing his unimpressive, hirsute physique.
4. Total randomness. (Boats n Hoes)
5. Actual humor (“Celebrity Jeopardy,” Robert Goulet rap, much of the SNL material).

Yet for all his faults, Ferrell isn’t completely worthless. I finally got around to watching one of his earlier films, “Old School,” yesterday, and I was surprised – it was actually pretty good. Sure, Ferrell sheds his clothes to clumsily reveal his shapeless torso and pasty white butt, but otherwise the film was entertaining. I have a feeling Luke Wilson is what saved the movie – Ferrell works well when he has a “straight man” to work with, and Wilson is one of the best straight man players in comedy today (I’ve loved him ever since “Idiocracy,” a brilliantly funny dystopian dark comedy. If you haven’t seen it, definitely check it out). Where Vince Vaugn plays the idiocy-enabling buddy (a lukewarm performance at best), Wilson is the voice of reason to Ferrell’s ridiculousness… and he’s cute as hell, to boot. IMHO, Ferrell is at his best in a double act, whether he’s playing the funny man as in “Old School,” or the stooge; Ferrell’s “Alex Trebek” to Darrell Hammond’s “Sean Connery” was some of SNL’s best comedy in the last decade.

So, while I still loathe most Will Ferrell movies, I now have a criterion for deciding whether or not I’ll give his films a chance:

• “Stepbrothers” - comedic duo with two idiots. Pass.
• “Blades of Glory” – John Heder is friggin’ hilarious, although I’m not sure how the dynamic between the two would play out. Proceed with caution.
• “Land of the Lost” – Ferrell’s supposedly carrying this film solo. Pass.

This Week’s Netflix: A Roundup

Swingers (1996): I’m sure it was more enlightening back in the days before the “seduction community” came into the public’s awareness. 6/10.

Titus (1999): A visually fantastic reimagining of Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s most violent play. Incidentally, it gave me nightmares. Sir Anthony Hopkins, ftw. 8/10.

Amadeus (1984): Period film about the rivalry between Mozart and Antonio Salieri. Actually a lot better than it sounds. Oscar winner. 8/10.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004): Heart-wrenching film for anyone who’s ever loved and lost. Jim Carrey plays the awkward average Joe surprisingly well. 9/10.

Johnny Nmemonic (1995): Keanu Reeves does cyberpunk. Seriously, wtf was I thinking adding this to the queue? 3/10.

Bank Job (2008): Jason Statham stars in another London heist film. Not as good as “Lock, Stock…,” but heist films are always fun, and Statham is always foxy. 7/10.

This Week’s Netflix: The Transporter 3 (2008)

Jason Statham is back again as Frank Martin, an ex-special forces soldier-turned-chauffeur for an action-packed ride through… blah blah blah. They had me at “Jason Statham,” of course.

I did not have high hopes for this film, but it turned out to be an improvement over the second installment, which from here out I’m going to pretend doesn’t exist. The stunts aren’t as gritty and realistic as the original Transporter, and the female protagonist isn’t nearly as cute and endearing as the lovely Qi Shu (but she is three times as obnoxious), and Martin seems somewhat out of character in several scenes. However, the action is still pretty awesome.

The good: I’ve made my fangirl crush on Statham apparent on this blog by now.

The bad: Why is it commonplace to give the helpless female lead no character development, save for a childish speech about her favorite foods (delivered as if she were five years old)? Fabienne did it in Pulp Fiction, and yes it was adorable then, but fifteen years later, I’m sick of it.

Bottom line: fans of the original will probably dig it.

Final Rating: 5/10.

This Week’s Netflix: Death Race (2008)

I was going through Statham-withdrawal, so I put this movie at the tip-top of my queue. I don’t enjoy racing/car movies, so I’m not even going to bother with a real review. Let me just say that I had a wide grin on my face for most of this movie. It wasn’t good by any standards (not even the low standards I had for Crank), but dammit, it doesn’t need to be good as long as Statham’s sporting that lean, “prison-ripped” bod. Hawt!

An observation: Jason Statham is this generation’s Jean-Claude Van Damme. Martial arts, bad action movies, and the inability to lose his European accent. Even when playing American roles, his delightful British accent is still there (See: War), causing all of his movies set in the US to include a throw-away comment about how his character “moved to the states” sometime in the past.

Rating: 3/10.

This Week’s Netflix: Kinsey (2004)

Starring Liam Neeson in the title role, Kinsey is a biopic of controversial sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, whose research in the 1940s and 1950s into human sexuality shed light on the wide discrepancy between what people were presumed to do behind closed doors, and what they actually did. The film chronicles his life, beginning with his strict Methodist upbringing, through his academic career and mission to bring real sex education, rather than conservative moral instruction disguised as science, to the public.

The Good: Liam Neeson is always excellent, and the depiction of his relationship with his wife (Laura Linney) was touching. John Lithgow reprises his role as the crotchety old religious fanatic from Footloose. Also, the movie surprisingly avoids pushing any kind of social agenda; Kinsey’s unconventional private lifestyle is shown as a workable agreement between consenting adults, as well as capable of creating marital tumult, and ultimately leaves the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

The Bad: Peter Sarsgaard must be a “grower” rather than a shower.

Bottom Line: It’s good, and while you may blush while watching it, it’s not as cringe-inducing as Talk Sex With Sue Johansen.  Interesting wiki-fact – Kinsey was the first film that Japan allowed to show uncensored images of human genetalia.

Final Rating: 8/10.

This Week’s Netflix: Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Requiem for a Dream has been recommended by enough friends that I finally decided to give it a whirl. Not being a huge fan of the “drug movie” genre, I figured I wouldn’t enjoy this film going into it. Other than a few stylized shots and sequences that turn stale by their third or fourth use, Requiem doesn’t have much going for it. Well-rounded characters? Nope. A rich plot? Not so much. According to director Darron Aronofsky, it’s “a punk movie where the audience is a mosh pit of emotion.” Whoa – deep.

The Good: Jared Leto’s pretty face was the only thing that kept me interested in this film (it wasn’t his acting, anyway). Also, the foreboding string quartet score was a high point, though the version used for The Two Towers trailer is far superior.

The Bad: Actually, the movie isn’t that terrible, I just feel it gets an undeserved amount of praise. 100 minutes of intensity and style ought not be confused with great cinema.

Bottom Line: Less than Zero, re-envisioned by a film student.

Final Rating: 5/10

This Week’s Netflix: Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

That’s right, two back-to-back netflix reviews in one night.

Guy Ritchie’s critically-acclaimed directorial debut follows the misadventure of four London friends who, after losing a rigged poker game and becoming indebted to the porn-lord of London’s underworld, plan a heist to steal the (already stolen) drugs from the criminals in the next flat over. Quick, snappy British dialogue and dry wit ensue. And gun fights.

The good: Jason Statham (of course), Sting, the notion of beating a man to death with a dildo.

The bad: thick British accents that are hard to decipher on-the-fly. I would have turned on subtitles, but I’m not sure if Netflix’s streaming service supports them yet.

Final rating: 8/10.

Confession time: I’m on a bit of a Jason Statham kick these days. The man is absolutely delicious. Rawr. Who’da thunk this former Trent Reznor junkie would suddenly do a 180 and become drawn towards ripped, bald guys? (Perhaps my Patrick Stewart crush was an early warning). My netflix queue is filled with Statham’s movies for my Statham-enjoyment. It may be a few weeks before I exhaust this obsessive fangirl crush. That said, has anyone seen The Transporter 3 yet? I’d like to determine if it’s worth the $8.50 ticket price.

This Week’s Netflix: Vanilla Sky (2001)

I have only one thought after viewing this film: I doubt that Tom Cruise was “acting” in this role. I suspect that he really is that maniacal, delusional, and insane.

Final Rating: 4/10, which would be much higher had the director chosen a different lead actor.

Some praise should go to the usually overrated Cameron Diaz, who delivers a convincing performance of the chick who gives it up easily, and then wonders why the guy doesn’t respect her.