It’s the penultimate entry There’s actually more entries left in “The Marshall & Julie Project” than I thought, yet we are still nearing the end. Are you sad it’s going to be over? (Even if you aren’t don’t tell me that.)
I hope you enjoy today’s entry because it was certainly one of my favorites to write.That would be coming tomorrow, but I still like today’s entry.
Day 12: “Time to Move to Weehawken” / “Time to Evacuate to Oklahoma”
Read the rest of this entry »
In “The Disappearance of Alice Creed,” two kidnappers (Eddie Marsan and Martin Compston) hold the daughter of a rich businessman hostage for a hefty ransom. It goes all according to plan in the first stage, but it all seems to go wrong after that due to a series of blunders.
Funny enough, our reaction to the movie echoes all the plot developments. The movie is gripping for the first thirty minutes, particularly as we watch the kidnappers set up for the abduction and the period following. There’s something very chilling about how meticulously organized their process is, and it’s made even more eerie by their silence.
In typical minimalist indie fashion, we don’t see the actual kidnapping, but the aftermath is just as scary. They bring Alice Creed (Gemma Arterton) into a soundproofed apartment where they quickly strip her, gag her, and tie her to a chained-down bed. And once they have her securely in their grip, the movie starts to lose its grip on plausibility. The respect that we had built up for it slowly begins to diminish for the next hour until the thriller practically devolves into a comedy.
Just when we expect the movie to wow us with originality, it takes a series of bizarrely typical twists of the genre. There are all sorts of hackneyed gimmicks designed for a quick thrill. The situations are robbed of any suspense because we’ve seen it done a million times, and the ultimate unintended result is laughter at their predictability. In a summer where laughs have been hard to come by, I’ll take them where I can get them.
Really, the unexpected relationships between the characters are the only things unique about the movie. There are literally three people in it, no extras, no voices on the telephone, no random people in the background. Just Marsan doing the same old cantankerous villain, Arterton baring it all while getting away from her 2010 tentpole action movies, and Compston making a blip for the first time on my radar. These aren’t three random people, as we find out. But for the same of keeping the atmosphere of a thriller in “The Disappearance of Alice Creed,” maybe they should have been. B / 
As if a divinely sent sign after a melancholy morning, I discovered I was tagged in the “Happy 101” meme sweeping the blogosphere by fellow teen blogger Dan the Man. Thanks, homes.
I have a bunch of time today to watch movies (although I will be finishing up summer reading and doing college application work too), and I was planning on watching some heavier stuff. But after this morning, I needed a cheer-up movie or, at the very least, something that wasn’t going to be a huge downer. So as I’m writing, I am watching “Almost Famous” for only the second time, a movie that I love and is raising my spirits some.
But in the spirit of the meme, here are ten movies that I’ve watched on TV recently fora good smile:
Sorry, but I’ll pass on tagging because everyone I read has pretty much been taken care of – and it’s really late. My mind is tired after a third viewing of “Inception.”
Oh, and here’s the nifty little graphic thing that I should probably include.
Honesty is something rare in Hollywood. We are shielded from the true identities of our favorite stars; they hide behind closed doors and allow their publicists to spin our image of their lives.
But thanks to a year’s worth of dedicated work by a documentary crew, we get the privilege to go underneath the plastic and makeup to see the real Joan Rivers. They managed to filter everything down to an hour and a half to create the often shocking but always honest “Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work,” a film full of profound revelations about show business.
It’s a complete and thorough look at the comedienne. We get to see how she lives, how she works, and how she deals with everything going on in her life after she turns 75. What makes the movie special, though, is that it delves into why she works. At her age, most people choose to settle down and retire. So why is she booking gigs at hole-in-the-wall New York clubs and small Wisconsin towns? Like Sgt. James of last summer’s “The Hurt Locker” showed us, it’s possible to be addicted to things other than drugs, and Joan Rivers is simply addicted to working. She has to be booked to keep her world afloat.
We would all think that someone with Rivers’ fame (or infamy) could keep her busy all the time, but she reminds us what a fickle business the entertainment industry can be. The fearless woman comic that everyone wants is not her anymore but rather Kathy Griffin. It’s strange to think that fame can still be ephemeral even for someone so well established in comedy as she is, and Rivers doesn’t ever hesitate to remind us of it. She lets us see all of her insecurities, as reticent in front of the camera as she is doing her stand-up act, which is to say not at all.
The filmmakers also do a fantastic job of putting her recent triumphs and struggles in a historical context, giving us flashbacks to her days of discovery by Johnny Carson, her trail-blazing early years in comedy when she dared to make a joke about abortion, and her tumultuous family life. While there’s the joy of meeting her husband Edgar and quickly marrying, there’s also the pain of his suicide and the ruin that it left her. While there’s her fame that comes from being Carson’s golden girl, there’s also the heartbreak of being blacklisted by NBC when he felt betrayed by her getting her own show. Have no doubt about it, Rivers has had no cakewalk of a life. Yet throughout it all, she’s kept working because she needs it.
As in all documentaries, we find it fascinating to see the subject as the camera crew sees them. Yet “Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work” takes our vision one step deeper; we get to see how Rivers sees herself. In her mind, she’s an actress, not a comedian, and she can’t take anyone insulting her acting. Simply playing herself here is a great performance, certainly one we won’t soon forget. A / 
Only three entries left in “The Marshall & Julie Project,” so give it a shot and catch the fad while it’s still going on. I know it looks long, but prove everyone who says Americans have no attention spans wrong!
As always, comments appreciated.
Day 11: “Flaming Crepes!” / “Flaming Crap!”
Will Ferrell made a name for himself playing in the movie industry by playing some crazy larger-than-life characters, such as Buddy the Elf and Ron Burgundy. Recently, he has been tarnishing that name by playing Will Ferrell, or at least how we have come to perceive Will Ferrell: a lazy, pathetic, and fairly eccentric bum. After a series of unintentionally humorless flops, it’s hard to have confidence that “The Other Guys” could end the slump.
The movie isn’t great, certainly nowhere near the likes of “Elf” or “Anchorman,” but it’s a definite improvement from “Step Brothers” and “Land of the Lost.” The story and the characters still aren’t quite back in full force, yet there’s some comfort in seeing the return of a crucial ingredient – laughter. Fairly often, a joke will fall flat or just not work quite right. But more often than not, they manage to work, and we laugh more than we wince.
This isn’t the movie to break Will Ferrell’s slump; however, it’s definitely a step in the right direction and hopefully the beginning of an upward trend. It definitely helps that he’s not playing some ridiculous moron but rather a regular Joe Schmoe moron, someone who might actually exist out there. While we’ve been there done that with Ferrell’s one-note comedy of bizarre characters, there’s something refreshing and, dare I say, exciting about watching him go off the beaten path for a while.
But there’s more to this movie than just reporting that Will Ferrell can be decent again. We can’t forget Mark Wahlberg, who plays a cop that is a complete polar opposite of his Staff Sgt. Dignam from “The Departed.” While he got to play the ultimate hard Boston police officer in the 2006 Best Picture winner, he’s tackling a decidedly different role as Holtz, the paper-pushing officer stuck working with Ferrell’s pitiful Gamble. Wahlberg has never been in a comedic movie before, yet it’s amazing how he blends right in as if we’ve been seeing him do these types of movies for years. I won’t go as far as to call he and Farrell a new “odd couple” (a new favorite critical comparison), but they certainly do play off each other well throughout the movie.
It’s the two marquee names that carry the movie. They don’t get any help from Eva Mendes, who plays Gamble’s smoking hot wife, or Steve Coogan, the Brit who plays the Wall Street scumbag who is meant to remind us of Bernie Madoff. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson, the Dignams so to speak of the movie, aren’t in the movie long enough to produce many laughs, and the ones that they do were ruined in the trailer. There are some nice running jokes with Michael Keaton, the police chief who moonlights at Bed Bath and Beyond, that wind up being funny after a few tries. But have no doubt about it – this is Mark Wahlberg’s movie and it is Will Ferrell’s movie, for better or for worse. B- / 
A few days ago, Aiden R of “Cut the Crap Movie Reviews” asked what movie posters lurked in my closet when he humbly declined to accept my gift of posters. Rather than reply in a comment, here’s a list of all the fire hazards I’ve picked up from movie theaters over the past couple of years. (NOTE: This isn’t counting the giant roll of posters from the ’90s I mentioned in Random Factoid #145.)
“Toy Story 3” and “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” are hanging up on my wall. Of those in the closet, “(500) Days of Summer” probably had the longest tenure on the bulletin board.
We are starting to come to the close of “The Marshall & Julie Project,” which is strange because I feel like I’ve just started. Anyways, let me know what you’ve enjoyed (or haven’t, if you feel so inclined). I hope that you have learned as much about me from this project as I have learned about myself.
Day 10: “Sweet Smell of Failure” / “Sweet Smell of Penny-Pinching”
I’ve thought of three great comparisons for “Hard Candy,” the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie, for those who need a refresher on the acronym), and I just had to include them in my post. I think they make a great lead. Imagine me clearing my throat, and then I say to you…
“Hard Candy” is “Misery” for the digital age. It’s Michael Haeneke’s “Funny Games,” pedophile edition! And it’s “Paranormal Activity” without the ghosts!
I’m sure I probably have you more confused than anything right now, so allow me to explain.
The first scene, an internet chat, sets up our assumptions about the two characters. Hayley (Ellen Page) is a 14-year-old girl who allows herself to be wooed by Jeff (Patrick Wilson), a much older photographer, presumably a pedophile from the way they speak to each other. When they arrange to meet for the first time at a coffee shop, we have roles assigned for them in our heads: Jeff the hunter and Hayley the victim.
But the movie quickly shows us that we have these roles mixed up once they return to his house. As if in one of those crazy games where the deer shoot the rednecks, Hayley tortures Jeff in his own dwelling, punishing him for crimes that she isn’t certain he has committed. But as the server of preemptive justice, she has little care for following the rules, and her innocence fades quickly as her games become more cruel and sadistic with each passing minute.
This isn’t a movie for the faint at heart and certainly not for those who want to think of Ellen Page as a good-hearted, spunky teenager. Director David Slade makes a gripping movie by making all the events compellingly realistic, choosing to craft a very eerie natural tension by relying on the actors to really communicate the emotions. In an era where the average movie changes shots every two seconds, Slade opts for several haunting long shots. There’s a particular one of Patrick Wilson that last several minutes which will surely sear into your memory forever.
I’ve left out a pretty significant part of my summer experience on the blog. Sure, I’ve seen plenty of movies, but there’s something much more important going on at my house.
At the end of June, my dog (a miniature schnauzer) had six adorable little puppies. So my family has been very busy taking care of them, spending much of our day – and night – making sure that they get enough food, that they have fresh paper, and what not.
Cinematic connection – I promise. I’m a huge sucker for dog movies, and so is America ($144 million for “Marley & Me” doesn’t lie). Even though I know that the dog will always die at the end, I still watch and usually cry, given that the movie is good enough.
I know why it is that we love these movies. Dogs teach us so many lessons, such as how to be unconditionally faithful to someone. (I’ve been watching “Mad Men” recently and everyone on that show could watch a few dog movies.) They also teach us responsibility and how to take care of someone (something everyone in “Precious” could have used). And they also teach us that life is temporary, so we must appreciate it while it lasts.
That being said, I am going to enjoy these puppies for the three weeks until they go to their permanent homes.
Thanks to those (two) of you who let me know you were reading. I did an analysis of Julie Powell’s blog, “The Julie/Julia Project” over at Anomalous Material, and I sure would appreciate if you went to check that out. I was trying to find a place to link to the quite lengthy comment, and this seemed like a good place.
You know, where Julie and I can be servantless American bloggers.
Day 9: “The Proof Is in the Plumbing” / “The Work Is in the Homework”
Joe Johnston’s “The Wolfman” is a remake of the 1940s original, yet it winds up making you nostalgic for a completely different decade. Strangely enough, it most resembles the 1980s. Benicio Del Toro in his werewolf makeup looks like he walked straight off the set of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” video and somehow wound up in 1890s England. Weird…
The movie tells the same story we have seen countless times with all sorts of predatory creatures, although it’s typically werewolves and vampires. Some sort of flesh contact is made with the creatures, a normal person is transformed into one of them, and they subsequently find themselves living on the outskirts of society. In fact, we just recently saw Neil Blompkamp use this formula and apply it to aliens in “District 9,” and he created something that felt refreshingly original. Here, it’s just same old, same old.
In fact, the only thing that Joe Johnston does to add some flavor to the tired story is to amp up the violence and gore. “The Wolfman” bears an R rating and uses that level of freedom to go hog wild on the blood. There’s all sorts of decapitations and ripping of limbs in the movie, almost to the point where it becomes overkill. One has to wonder if Johnston turned over the reins to some violent video-game loving teenager for these sequences.
I can’t think of the last time where I actually thought that a movie’s special effects were bad, but they certainly are here. Blame poor planning and poor execution on the filmmakers’ part. And there’s absolutely no relief from the hackneyed story, not even from a pair of Oscar winners, Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins. Never has the latter been so far away from his “The Silence of the Lambs” glory days. If he doesn’t start picking better movies, I’m going to have to hold a moment of silence for his career.
And still, I just can’t get over that wolf makeup because it’s just absolutely horrific. I find it so hard to believe that it’s the work of renowned Oscar winner Rick Baker, not some mom for a high school play. Watching Del Toro’s wolfman fight civilians just made me chuckle; watching him fight another werewolf was as funny as any comedy this year. The suspenseful, climactic battle scene just feels like a dreadful”Scary Movie” parody of the wretched “Twilight” series. D / 
Again, let me know you’re out there! A comment or a read is much appreciated … I put my heart and soul into this project, and I really think you should give it a chance. Interest seems to have slowly weaned, which really breaks my heart. Don’t make me shame you into reading … you can’t hear the teardrops hitting my keyboard. KIDDING!
But really, you should read this series.
Day 8: “They Shoot Lobsters, Don’t They?” / “They Read Blogs, Don’t They?”
Today’s 31BBBB (courtesy of Anomalous Material) assignment was to promote a blog post. But rather than promote a blog post, I’m just going to promote my whole site. I launched a Facebook fan page a week ago, and I was planning on plugging it with a giant post. Unfortunately, I haven’t written that post yet, and I really can’t wait any longer to promote it.
So click on the link below to be taken to my Facebook page. Become a fan and get updates as I deem them appropriate! (I’m still working on setting up the mechanics of the thing, but be patient please because I’m working on it.)
And speaking of Facebook, please tell me I’m not the only one who can’t wait for “The Social Network” to come out? I’m OBSESSED with the new trailer; I listen to the cover of “Creep” all the time now.
While base ticket prices at my favorite theater have slowly become more and more expensive, the 3D premium price has stayed at a constant $3. Yet in the past few weeks, they have raised that price to $4 per ticket. For some movies, I’m willing to pay that premium on top of the exorbitant ticket. For movies like “Step Up 3,” however, I’d be willing to pay just that $4 premium.
This is a movie that falls perfectly into a category I like to call “bearably bad.” It is a complete joke, something that should come as no surprise to anyone who has seen a trailer or realized it to be an ugly stepchild threequel to its legitimate predecessor. Everything about the movie oozes corniness. But what makes it bad is what makes it so terribly good.
There’s a certain mindset that you have to enter when you see a movie like “Step Up 3” – or at least that you should enter if you want to get any sort of enjoyment out of it. You have to forget that actors are supposed to act. For the movie, they just need to look good and dance well. How else could a former Abercrombie model get a lead?
You will also need to forget how people talk in the real world. Every other line offers you a chance to laugh at the ridiculousness of the movie. Finally, you will have to forget what a real movie is like, having to accept the string of dialogue that passes for a plot, incoherently leading to dance competition after dance competition. And why should you care? If you watch this movie to be blown away by its narrative power, you need serious help.
As for the dancing, which is the movie’s main attraction, it’s entertaining enough. There’s nothing particularly mind-blowing or much more special than videos you can find on YouTube. But you have to see it in 3D, right? Don’t bite the Hollywood marketing bait; see dancing in real 3D and go find them exhibiting their skills in studios or on the streets. C /
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments