The new Superman movie, Man of Steel, was released over the weekend. Starring Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman/Kal-El it details the origins of his character and the first time Superman is unleashed on the public. The movie is directed by Zach Snyder, written by David S. Goyer, and produced by Christopher Nolan.

My quick, spoiler free assessment: It’s flawed. The movie does have a few good things going for it. It’s worth the price of admission for the action scenes — which I’d rank as probably the best superhero action ever put on film. Snyder really captures the scope of what has been depicted in comic books for the past 70 some-odd years. That said, there’s a lot of missteps in how they handled the Superman character and the particular story of this movie.

Full, spoiler-filled review below.

Continue reading →

On Friday, May 3rd, Iron Man 3 will be released in U.S. theaters. The Iron Man franchise is what made Marvel the kings of summer movies for the past few years. The first two Iron Man movies were directed by Jon Faverau. However IM3 is not. It is directed and co-written by Shane Black.

You might not recognize Black’s name, but you should because he is awesome.

Continue reading →

The Phantom Menace sucks.

Batman & Robin sucks.

The Matrix sequels suck.

Gigli sucks.

Spider-Man 3 sucks.

When it comes to movie criticism and audience reactions, these statements could be called “truths.”.

Are there people who will defend one of these movies? Of course. Every movie ever made will always have at least one person defend it and one person deride it. Doesn’t matter if it’s The Godfather or Twilight. On the spectrum of criticism, it’s bound to happen. But when the vast majority of movie-goers share an opinion, it’s easier to make a statement like “The Phantom Menace sucks.”

Here’s my question though: What exactly do we gain from continuing to talk about these movies and their sucky-ness?

When someone feels the need to pipe up and declare their distaste for The Phantom Menace, what does it accomplish? How does it add to the collective discourse? From an intellectual standpoint, I know that people are capable of holding grudges. Sometimes for a really, really long time.  But how does it benefit a person’s life or society at large to continue to rant about this movie?

It’s been nearly 15 years since Phantom Menace was released. Fifteen years of people ranting about how much the movie sucks, how the movie “raped” their childhood, how George Lucas is Satan, how annoying Jar-Jar is, how annoying young Anakin is, how the dialogue was more wooden than a tree, how the movie was a cacophony, how CGI effects are way worse than practical ones. So on and so forth.

Is there anyone on this planet not aware of these complaints? Is there anyone for whom it is a complete surprise that people have a strong, negative opinion of this movie? Will another rant retroactively cause a rip in the space-time continuum and cause George Lucas to actually make a good version of the movie? No.

I don’t want people to suddenly pull a 180 and like the movie. But at a certain point you have to just let it go. A bad prequel was made by a guy who at one point made some really good movies. That’s all that happened. Bad movies get made all the time. In fact, comparatively speaking, The Phantom Menace can’t possibly be the worst movie ever made. That title has to go to something made that with a shoestring budget and barely released to the public. But of course, The Phantom Menace was a high profile failure. Because it was seen by many, a lot more people can partake in the rants than people who rant about a movie like, I don’t know, Mongolian Death Worm.

I get it, though. The Star Wars movies mean a lot to people. Even though I wasn’t born when the original trilogy was released, I still have fond memories of watching the movies during my childhood. I can clearly recall the astonishment I felt seeing Luke as a badass Jedi Knight in the beginning of Return of the Jedi. I remember the despair I felt while Luke lost his hand in the fight against Darth Vader. I still to this day get goosebumps when Han swoops in to give an assist to Luke at the end of New Hope. It’s one of the most thrilling moments in a movie ever made.

And yes, of course it sucked to wait in line waiting for Phantom Menace to be released, spend how ever much was a ticket back in 1999, and sit through a crap movie for two hours. But to hold onto that anger for 15 years? It borders on unhealthy.

At a certain point the rage directed towards The Phantom Menace simply became a joke — or meme, if you insist — that was perpetuated mindlessly in conversation and the internet. “HA HA HA. That movie isn’t as bad as [pause for laughter] The Phantom Menace!!” The distaste for the movie lost all meaning, credibility, and purpose. We’ve all seen what it’s like when a joke is beaten into the ground. Once a joke has lost its luster, it’s a sad sight to see someone try to revive it. It’s like when a movie spawns a funny joke and then a year later some advertiser tries to use it in a commercial. Perpetuating stale jokes is the reason why people can’t stand Scary Movie, Epic Movie, and all the Blank Movies. And yet, we’re part of a culture where it is still okay to rant against a terrible movie such as The Phantom Menace or Gigli.

I guess I’ll never understand why it seems like people are more willing to celebrate the negative than to celebrate the positive. It just seems toxic and dwelling in that negativity all the time cannot possibly be good for a person’s psyche and attitude. I’d be willing to make the case that someone who constantly talks about how bad movies are is someone who creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for him or herself and is never satisfied with the movies they watch. It’s the type of person who always exclaims that movies aren’t made the way they used to and everything released now is garbage. That type of person is blinded by nostalgia and their own inability to keep up with current trends, attitudes, and unwilling to alter their tastes. It’s not they type of person to emulate.

The Phantom Menace is probably a bad example to use for this article. Yes, I’d love for people to stop ranting against it because it’s an exercise in futility; not because I secretly like the movie. However, in 2015 new Star Wars movies will be released and I’m sure everyone will dredge up memories of how they were absolutely traumatized by seeing The Phantom Menace.

The point is this: It’s okay to stop talking about a movie that seems like nearly everyone has a dislike for. When you continue to have conversations about how terrible the Matrix sequels were or Spider-Man 3 you’re preaching to the choir. The meaning of that phrase is that you’re telling people something that they share the same opinion on. You’re not going to sway anyone’s opinion. A bad movie was made 15 years ago. It’s okay to stop talking about it. To keep perpetuating the same stale conversation is just to emit white noise from your mouth hole.

There has to be a statute of limitations on this type of thing. Want to talk about how The Phantom Menace used CGI in narrative. Go ahead. Maybe talk about how the nature of sequels and how Spider-Man 3 was ultimately overloaded with content and suffered. But to give a broad rant about the movie is just a waste of everyone’s time.

-Harrison

WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD

I’m not entirely sure what other people’s opinions on flashbacks in movies are (feel free to offer your opinion!). I’m not exactly a big fan of this story telling device.

While watching Takashi Miike’s Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai I felt this was the perfect movie to illustrate the problems with flashbacks that I have. The crux of the issue is that flashbacks tend to deflate any narrative tension or surprise for the audience.

Continue reading →

Part of the fun of being a (fledgling) critic is getting to be a sort of cultural ambassador to get the word out about movies that may have flown under people’s radar.

Have you ever seen a movie that gives you a high after watching it? You feel like you’re floating on air. Your brain has reorganized itself into something…. different. Something new.

I’m not claiming everyone watching Joseph Kahn’s Detention will have the same feeling. In fact, I can see how this movie is/can be super polarizing. I’m just saying I got that high feeling I’d be remiss if I didn’t pass on my praise.

This movie can be explained in two ways:

One, it belongs in the blossoming genre of ADHD cinema. Its fellow movies are Crank, Crank: High Voltage, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, and Shoot ‘Em Up, among others. Its closest movie relative is Scott Pilgrim, except with Detention, you have to sub out romantic comedy for teen slasher movie. But it’s so, so much more than that. The movie is a commentary on the divide between the Millennial Generation and the as-of-yet unnamed Generation Z.

Two, it is the type of movie you have to recommend with the caveat to not read reviews of the movie, watch trailers, or gain any outside knowledge of the movie. It’s one of those movies that is truly surprising. Just when you think the movie has settled into its groove, it shakes up the gimmick and shifts over to something else. Detention screws around with genre, tropes, editing, cliches, and pop culture references, but it does it sincerely and earnestly. It’s the type of movie that dares you to keep up with the action. If your brainwaves sync up with Joseph Kahn’s, you’ll be entertained through every second of the 90 minute run time.

Joseph Kahn raised the money for this movie himself. There was no studio interference. This is the type of movie that should be supported. The creatives who made the movie had a direct line to the audience’s ears and eyeballs. There was no forced romantic subplot, no obnoxious tie-in ads, no bland, safe leading actor. None of that. This is pure artistic intent put into movie form.

If you have a predisposition to like ADHD movies like the ones listed above, there’s a good chance you’ll like Detention. If you don’t like ADHD movies, I still implore you to see it. You never know if you’ll like it or not. If nothing else, this movie deserves to be talked about — positively or negatively.

-Harrison

Part of the fun of being a (fledgling) critic is getting to be a sort of cultural ambassador to get the word out about movies that may have flown under people’s radar.

Killer Joe is a movie that should be seen by more people. Now, Killer Joe isn’t some homemade movie made by someone in their garage. It’s a movie directed by William Friedkin, starring Matthew McConaughey, Emile Hirsch, and Gina Gerson (among other established actors).

The reason why the movie hasn’t been seen by many is because it initially received an NC-17 rating. Getting an NC-17 rating is a bit of a kiss of death for movies. Many theaters refuse to carry movies with that rating. According to Box Office Mojo, the movie was only released in 75 theaters across the country. In any case, the movie is now on DVD and Blu Ray and is available for audiences to watch it.

Killer Joe is a violent, dirty, somewhat hard-to-stomach noir. Instead of a city, the movie takes place primarily in a poverty stricken part of Texas. The main characters live in a trailer. They shop at thrift stores for clothes.

The movie begins with Emile Hersch’s character begging his father (Thomas Haden Church) for money. Hersch is in trouble with a local criminal organization. When he realizes his father doesn’t have to money to help him out, Hersch gets the idea to hire a cop who moonlights as a hitman to kill his own mother. Hersch’s mother has a life insurance policy. Soon Hersch has convinced his father, step-mother, and sister to go along with his plan.

The hitman they hire is the titular Killer Joe, played by Matthew McConaughey. McConaughey’s skills as an actor have been called into question over the course of his career. This is obviously because he primarily works in romantic comedy movies. However, in this film it’s like watching another person entirely. He does the thing all actors strive to do, he gets lost in the role and makes the audience forget they’re watching a person act in a fictional story.

Killer Joe recalls past neo-noirs like Winter’s Bone and Red Rock West. It’s clear that Friedkin and writer Tracy Letts (adapting his own play) are knowledgeable and respectful of the noir genre. What they’ve done is create a new type of noir that blends old tropes with new levels of violence and disturbing content.

This is a movie that should not be missed. (Don’t get me wrong, the movie definitely earns its NC-17 rating.)

-Harrison