Showing posts with label dvd review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dvd review. Show all posts

8.08.2009

DVD Review: Dakota Skye.

This movie is equally brilliant as it is aggravating. Dakota Skye (Eileen Boylan) has a superpower: she can tell when people are lying and know exactly what they really mean. And because of this, her life has made her very cynical and grumpy to the point where she even hates being around her best friend. Her boyfriend, Kevin (J.B. Ghuman Jr.), is an older guy, in a band, and is part time nice guy, part time daft jerk. But then his best friend in the world, Jonah (Ian Nelson), comes to visit from New York, and he turns Dakota's world upside down. How? Apparently, he never lies, which intrigues her immensely. He's like her arch-nemesis. The problem is... what happens when they fall for each other, especially since that leaves Kevin's emotions at play.

The movie is witty, clever, and--at times--genius. Seriously, there are some amazingly written (and acted) moments in this film--for instance, the "I can't tell you" scene with Jonah, or Dakota's internal monologue at the movie theater. The movie has some great ideas, as well. The problem is that the movie falls short at times of what it could have been with some of the ideas it presents. For every brilliantly written or acted scene, there seems to be a mediocre one (OK, so maybe the ratio is a little closer to the brilliant side). Though I did really like the main quirk of the film: whenever somebody said a lie, there would be a subtitle of what was really meant, which we knew Dakota knew, as well.

But my biggest issue falls with Dakota herself. While the actress who plays her is hot (or at least more than the "medium-cute" as she describes herself), she's a completely and utterly unlikable character. I know most of that is the point, but something could have been done to make her more likable, or at least shown some kind of change earlier in the film. Instead, the movie has her play with people's emotions and makes her that much more unlikable. Parts of her actually reminded me of Bella from the Twilight series (I don't think she's that bad, though). She has quite a bit of voice-over narration, especially toward the beginning, and most of that is really good--especially for voice-over narration. But it's the way she acts in person. In other words, she's totally Emo.

Part of the problem could also be due to the writing of boyfriend Kevin. At times, the character is presented as a douche (though unintentional on his part) who treats Dakota like crap. But other times, he was a pretty decent person, and I felt bad for him for how Dakota was treating him. If he was written as more of a total jerk, maybe her transition to Jonah wouldn't have made her look as bad as I felt it did.

But at the same time, these things fall under one of the movie's strengths: its realism. From the dialogue down to the character's actions, the movie felt like it could be real (despite the magical realism of her 'superpower'). There was just enough cussing or just enough teen angst to make the dialogue (or sometimes lack thereof) seem absolutely real. It was never really overdone at all. The movie was quirky, but not too quirky to where--with something like Juno--it seems made-up. And the characters aren't your typical Hollywood cardboard cutouts (the jerk boyfriend, the faultless lead female). The characters had depth and ranges of emotions. But I'm just not sure whether or not it worked for this film and with what it was trying to accomplish. As I said, it made the main character come off as completely unlikable and unsympathetic.

As such, this is a very strange movie to review. Part of me wants to give it a really high score due to these streaks of brilliance. But the other part of me is fighting that urge for any or all of the aforementioned reasons. I can compare a handful of things about it to Twilight, which isn't remotely a good thing. At least the writing and dialogue is better. The cinematography was really good; the movie looked great. And the music was decent. I suppose, overall, I'm gonna go, as usual, with entertainment value over more technical aspects (writing, etc.). So with that said...

Photobucket
I Am McLovin!

5.20.2009

DVD Review: Zack And Miri Make A Porno.

I often find myself looking at other movie blogs to see how they feel about certain movies. I look because most blogs I frequent have similar tastes as myself so I have a good idea of what I'll think of a movie. But there are certain types of movies I can't do that with, because I usually have a varying opinion. Kevin Smith films are one of those. So when Zack And Miri Make A Porno only got lukewarm reviews (at best) not only from movie blogs I frequent, but from many reviewers in general, I decided to ignore all of them (for instance, I happen to like Jersey Girl. I don't care what you naysayers think). As such, Zack and Miri was placed on my Netflix queue for roughly 3 months in a status of "Very Long Wait." Well, the movie finally came, and I've finally see it. So now I'm objecting you to my opinion.

Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) have been best friends since first grade, and they even live together now as adults. They work together at a small coffee shop with Delaney (Craig Robinson), who constantly talks negatively about his wife (Tisha Campbell-Martin). But the coffee shop job isn't giving them enough money for rent or utilities, and they lose everything. But during a 10-year class reunion, they meet up with Miri's high school crush Bobby (Brandon Routh) and his new "friend," Brandon St. Randy (Justin Long)... who just happen to work in the porn industry. This inevitably leads to the idea of how to pay off their bills--make and sell a porno. So they get a cast and crew, including Lester (Jason Mewes), Deacon (Jeff Anderson), Bubbles (Traci Lords), Stacey (Katie Morgan), and Barry (Ricky Mabe). So now all Zack and Miri have to contend with are their sudden jealous streaks and hidden feelings for each other as they realize they must not only have sex with each other, but other people, as well.

Like any Kevin Smith movie (or porno), this is a movie to watch without your family and in your room in the middle of the night... which I did. What does that have to do with anything? Well, I laughed. A lot. Without the laughter of an audience to spark it (as is sometimes the case when watching something with others). So to me, that makes this movie genuinely funny. Though I do believe it went a little far at times, even for Kevin Smith (for instance, the occurence that is referenced by this line: "She frosted me like a fucking cake!"). One of my favorite jokes, though, was a LOST reference ("They're on the island, they're off the island... who the fuck can follow that show?" "I think they're in Hell!" "Shut up.").

As you might have noticed just from two quotes, there is quite a bit of adult language. Though if you know anything about Kevin Smith, you'd know this already. That, and what'd you expect from an R-Rated movie with "Porno" in the title? And it easily rivals the Clerks films (if not surpasses them) on sex talk/involvement. So like I said, this probably isn't a movie to watch with your mother. Do I think this is a bad thing, though? No. I think there's a limit on raunchy and too raunchy, and this movie definitely touches at that limit, but it doesn't surpass it.

The acting, primarily Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, was very well done. I thought they were both heartfelt and had a genuine friendship. And you know, I did a post a while back about RomComs and how they always seem to blame the male and never the female. Amazingly, I think this is about as close as I've seen where it ends up moreso the female's fault than the male's (though they still find a way to turn it around on the male, at least partially). But that was a good turn-around.

Outside the two leads though, the next biggest character is Delaney, played by Craig Robinson, and he does a well enough job with his character. He's fun and likeable. The best character, though, had to be Justin Long's Brandon St. Randy, though he had way too little screen time. He's in basically one scene of the film, but it's a really good one. It's like Anti-Justin Long... he looked exactly the same as usual, but I still hardly recognized him because of how he acted the character. And it was hilarious. Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson were on form, as well, though you can't help but like those guys (particularly Anderson).

However, if the movie did have one major downfall, I felt it was in these secondary characters (this doesn't include Craig Robinson). They're awfully flat and don't have any kind of major importance except to move the plot along. It's just like... they're there and that's it. I would have liked to see more depth with these characters than was given (which wouldn't be hard, as it was already next to none).

Overall, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was funny and it had heart. Yeah, it was basically like shoving Kevin Smith and Judd Apatow together, but who wouldn't want to see that? They're both very talented men with similar styles (raunch with heart), and they work. So yeah, I again disagree with a lot of those 'lukewarm' reviews. Kevin Smith remains on my list of 'films I can't look to others for opinions on'. If you haven't seen it already, I recommend it... just make sure your parents/kids/little siblings aren't around when you watch it.

Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'


5.19.2009

DVD Review: The Messenger: The Story Of Joan Of Arc.

I am a major Luc Besson fan. I love almost anything he touches (directs, writes, produces... though mostly directs). As such, there are few films that he's made/directed that I haven't yet seen. The Messenger was one of them, and I'd been wanting to see it for years now, but never getting around to doing so. And now that I have... well, I wish I could take it back.

Joan (Milla Jovovich) is a peasant girl who, as a child, saw her village (and some of her family) destroyed. Now about 17, she believes God has chosen her as a messenger to speak with the rightful king of France (John Malkovich) and lead his army to victory against the British to reclaim French territory. And if you know the story of Joan of Arc, you know it isn't exactly a comedy.

And that's the biggest fuck up (pardon my French... and my bad puns) of the film. The tone is just terrible. During even the most serious of moments were strewn with most likely unintentional comedy that ruined most of the scenes. And then there were the scenes with intentional comedy that mostly didn't work. Tonally, the film was an utter mess.

And that leads in to how we feel about Joan (whose name sounds more like John through the film). Among other things, which I'll get to momentarily, Joan is portrayed as a flat-out lunatic. I know that in history, the controversy is that either Joan was really having visions and hearing God's message... or she was shizophrenic and just a strongheaded crazy lady. Besson really goes with the latter, and (again, bad pun coming) that really ruins what should have been the message of the film. Joan is so obviously insane that she's more of a joke than a martyr. By the time the movie ends and you see the title about how she was eventually canonized as a saint, it feels more like a mockery ("This crazy-ass chick is a saint?"). It was just a weird juxtaposition of information. It would be like having a movie that shows the true nature of Bin Laden and how he believes God told him to kill the infidels and take back his rightful land or something. But then he's arguing with himself the majority of the time, twitching... and then the movie ends with him dying in a cave... it fades to black... and you see "He was later canonized." The movie was supposed to be this ultimate tragedy, and it wasn't.

But Joan had other issues, and I'm not sure if I should put the blame on the acting or directing (as much as I'd hate to). When you first see Milla-Joan, she's this meek young woman who is near tears the entire time. Then there's this huge time lapse with no montage or training sessions or anything, and you see her on a war horse with a sword, and her personality has completely shifted. She's become this strongheaded, arrogant, crazy woman. And she got on my freakin' nerves. Seriously, there's a scene about halfway into the movie where she gets shot by an arrow. I know she's not gonna die because, well, there's still half a movie left and I know my history. But when she got shot, I couldn't help but do a mental cheer and wish that she would. Either the way Milla played her or the way Besson directed her was horrible.

Not to mention, with only a few exceptions, the casting of the film was awful. I've already discussed Milla. I like Malkovich, but a French king with an American accent surrounded by other people with accents? Why not just pick a French person? Or at least have Malkovich attempt an accent. And that was a big issue for most of the cast. It was a weird mix of nationalities (that should have been one nationality), and they didn't even attempt to make it more authentic. And then, of course, there's Dustin Hoffman, who I didn't realize was in the movie. So when I saw him near the end, I was like "what the hell? Dustin Hoffman?" He acted his part very well, but the character was too vague. It's listed as her conscience, but you don't know if it's that or Jesus/God or Satan or who. And his character brings in some of that awkward comedy (the 'where did the sword come from' scene... funny, but out of place).

For editing, it was hard to tell a lot of what was going on sometimes. One minute Joan would be one place, the next she'd be in a completely other place with things moving like a dream sequence. But then it turns out that it wasn't a dream sequence, and you're left confused. Though that could be an issue of scripting, as well. And I do think the script had some issues.

Overall, the movie is just a mess. My opinions aren't completely negative. There was some good cinematography (at least at the beginning) and some good (although miscast) acting. The fight scenes were decent, though incredibly fake-looking when it came to the blood or gore. It got overly cartoonish and sometimes slapstick at times, which just goes back to the tone. But now I'm going back to the negative during my positive section. I know this movie has a lot of lovers, especially at places like imdb. But although I have my deep love of Besson's films, and I'll still continue to see any others he puts out, I have to say I was highly disappointed in this one, and it took quite a bit not to just turn it off.

Photobucket
The Zed Word

5.15.2009

DVD Review: Martyrs.

When the movie begins with an introduction from the director telling you to drop any preconceived notions of what you think this film could be... and then he apologizes to you for what you're about to watch (after admitted he sometimes hates himself for making it, and sometimes feels very proud of himself for making it)... you know you're in for something. Well... something is, indeed, what you get.

15 years after Lucie (Mylene Jampanoi) escapes a torturous imprisonment, she garners the aid of her friend, Anna (Morjana Alaoui), to find the people who did it and get her revenge. But what happens next isn't quite what either of them (especially Anna) had in mind.

What seems like a very simplistic plot turns out to be much more than that. And just like the director says, this is really an experience different from many other horror films. Yet at the same time, it's somewhat similar. Like most recent torture porn, the movie is unrelenting in its blood and gore. Unlike recent torture porn, however, the movie's story takes a deeper turn.

The first half of the movie and the second half of the movie are like two separate entities. Though, unlike the recently reviewed Tokyo Zombie, the two halves mesh better together (mostly because the second half attempts to be an explanation for the first half). The first half of the movie, to me, is the better half. It's more of a thriller and a mystery (with copious amounts of blood). And, mostly, it leaves you going "what the hell is going on?" I really had no idea where the movie was going to take me next... and I enjoyed that rare experience.

But then the second half starts up, and this is more where the torture porn tag kicks in. In an attempt not to spoil anything (and it's really hard to say anything about this film without spoiling something), it's a lot of... well... torture. But it's the same thing over and over again. For roughly 30+ minutes. It gets kinda boring, actually. It does show an evolution of character, but it's like watching Evey's torture scenes from V For Vendetta without all the intertwined backstory and interviewing about V's whereabouts (including the head shaving). There's no dialogue, no real talking whatsoever... it's just the same torturous moments over and over again in short fade-in/fade-out scenes.

To use a metaphor, this movie is like a research paper. Before you get all boggled, let me explain. In a research paper, you must have a thesis statement... a purpose to the paper. And with this thesis statement, there needs to be a declaration of "So What?" Why am I reading/writing this? What's the point? Why should I or anybody else care? Now this thesis, along with the "so what," usually comes near the beginning of the paper. Sometimes the "so what" is extended through with the thesis and put around the middle. The rarest is to put it all at the end, because you have to be a pretty damn good writer to pull that off--you have to be able to write a paper that makes sense and works without a clear statement of what the hell your point is until the end.

This is what this movie attempted to do: it tried to not only put the "thesis" in the middle of the film, but also kept the "so what?" until the very end. And that specific combination is very dangerous, because you don't even get an idea of what you're dealing with until you've given your full attention for at least 45 minutes, and then you don't get any kind of point explanation until it's done and overwith. But by that point, you're probably too flabbergasted or confused or disinterested to even care. So did this film actually pull it off? Yes and no. It lost me through almost the entire second half of the film, which isn't good. However, the explanation, while not a major enough twist to change my thoughts completely, was decent enough for me to go "Oh, alrighty then."

So how was the movie otherwise? I can only discuss acting in the first half, in which it was pretty good. The blood was realistic, as well. The cinematography and camera use was done quite nicely. There were some pretty good shots and angles. And, dare I say, a few creepy moments. The movie wasn't really scary, though. It's just somewhat uncomfortable. Is it the most disturbing and bloody film I've ever seen (as it's proclaimed to be)? No. But it is infinitely more disturbing than the last movie that attempted to take that title (Hostel, which was just stupid).

Would I recommend it? If you're a horror fan or a gorehound, sure. I'd say at least give it one watch. Though if you don't like horror or gore, stay away. Overall, it has a decent story--nothing groundbreaking, but decent. I just wish the second half would have taken a different path (instead of going a Hostel-esque route).

Photobucket
I Am McLovin!


3.11.2009

DVD Review: Let The Right One In.

I want to prelude by saying this movie has been a long time coming for me. There’s a whole story to go with how I saw part of this movie a while back but didn’t get to finish it and whatnot, but I won’t get into that whole complicated mess. So instead, I just get to read about how this is a modern masterpiece, the best film of last year, and had one of the greatest endings to a film in quite some time. So with almost every review building it up and my own anticipation over the last few months building it up, I finally got to watch it on DVD. Needless to say, after all the hype around it… I was damn near under-whelmed. But before you grab the pitchforks and torches, let me give my review.


Let The Right One In is an almost by-definition “slow burn” film. If you’re not aware of what that is, a “slow burn” film is one that usually has thriller or horror aspects to it, but for the most part is about the characters and their interactions, making for quite a slow rise in tension. It builds all the way to the climax, giving you a couple short moments here or there, and then BAM, you have some kind of hardcore sequence at the end that you had been waiting for for the entire film. Another example of this type of movie is the Japanese film Audition. And as this is a Swedish film, you might catch the common denominator here: you don’t see these types of films very often as made in America.


But this film is about 12-year-old Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), a bullied child who dreams of vengeance and looks to be an up-and-coming school shooter. It’s also about Eli (Lina Leandersson), a vampire who looks to be 12 but is, in fact, much older. Eli has a helper named Hakan (Per Ragnar), as well. Oskar and Eli form a friendship, which the whole movie based upon. I don’t want to give much more than that away, because watching this film makes it seem like anything you say could be a spoiler.


There are other characters, too, but they really aren’t as important (so to speak), or as developed, as those main three. I’m really not too sure what to say about the film. It had great acting, of course. You really felt the pain from Oskar, and the uncertainty from Eli. The biggest compliment I can give is for the cinematography. The film is absolutely gorgeous to look at. If I had any major negatives for the movie as-is, it would be that I'd have liked to see more of Eli's past (as I've heard described in the book), which they were going to do in a flashback sequence, but cut it out because the director didn't want to slaughter a pig or something.


But what I loved the most about the film were the Eli moments. There are three moments I want to talk about specifically. First, of course, is the “invitation” explanation moment, where you find out what happens if a vampire enters a place without being invited in first. Second is an incredibly brief scene where if you blink, you’ll miss it. I actually had to rewind and watch it a couple times, just because I loved it so much. When Oskar takes Eli to the secret hangout place and it’s pitch black—you can hardly even see Eli’s face—if you pay close enough attention to Eli’s eyes right before Oskar turns on the lights, you’ll notice that they start to glow like they can see in the dark. It’s small attention to details like that which makes me love movies like this.


And then there was the third moment—the ending. Of course I’m not going to spoil it, but this is where I was under-whelmed the most. For months, all I heard was that this movie had one of the greatest endings to a movie ever. And then I finally see it, and I keep waiting, even after the climax, wondering if the awesome part is still coming like a major plot twist. And then the movie ends, and I’m going “Um… so where was that super awesome ultra ending of hardcore amazingness?” There’s no doubt that the climax was visually stunning. And I’m not blaming the movie for my let down, but the months of hype building it up before me finally seeing it. I think with much less hype around the ending, I might have enjoyed it so much more than I did. And I’d probably learn to love it more with future viewings.


However, as it stands now, the movie didn’t meet my expectations whatsoever. On the upside of this, though (and this is what I meant by waiting to grab the pitchforks and whatnot), my expectations were so high by the point of finally seeing the movie that I would have to have built on a new rating system had the movie actually met them. In other words, I had been expecting something like 20 stars out of 10 or something. So whereas it didn’t meet my expectations, my thoughts on the film were not bogged down to the point where I thought the film was bad. Instead, I felt the movie was merely ‘great’ instead of ‘stupendously outstanding orgasms'. Not to mention, it has a wicked awesome poster, and the Swedish title is freakin’ fun to say out loud. So with all of that being said, I can give my score.


Photobucket
Royale With Cheese

(P.S. Attention Stephenie Meyer - This is how you do vampires. That is all).

3.07.2009

DVD Review: Amélie.

Following up Watchmen with Amélie is like hanging out with Mother Teresa after reading Mein Kampf. Amélie Poulain (Audrey Tautou) is a shy, introverted French girl. But after she accidentally finds a rusty old box filled with knickknacks, she goes on a mission to get it back to the boy that used to live in her apartment. But this spirals her into a new life of controlled extroversion, helping people out from the shadows. But then she starts to fall in love with one of the guys she wants to help, a young photo collector named Nino (Mathieu Kassovitz).


This is an incredibly difficult review to write, mostly because I can’t think of much negative to say. It does everything that might annoy your average movie-goer. It spends a good chunk of the beginning introducing every miniscule thing (likes/dislikes) about every character. It has voice-over narration that spoon-feeds you information. It has moments of sped-up, frantic footage for almost no reason. It breaks the fourth wall. It has subtitles.


But I’m not your average movie-goer. And even if I were, I think I’d still love this movie. Even though it does all of those things, it somehow does them all right (well, there’s really no right or wrong way to have subtitles—for the most part—but I like foreign films, so those didn’t bother me anyway). The voice-over narration makes the characters quirky and fun, as well as just makes the film itself even more entertaining in its randomness. Even in the first ten minutes, with almost no real speaking outside of the voice-over, I was already entranced by everything that was going on, already emotionally involved. When young Amélie’s fish is dumped into the river and stares up at her, I felt sad for them both (Amélie and the fish).


The acting was great, of course. And Audrey Tautou is gorgeous. One thing I did want to bring up about the actors was Jamel Debbouze as Lucien, the young man at the grocers who gets made fun of all the time. It took me about half the movie to realize he played the lead male character in Angel-A, another great and beautiful French film about celebrating life and love. The guy can really act.


If there were anything negative to say, it would be that the relationship between two of the characters is never resolved. They fight because of jealousy brought about by a misunderstood moment, but the movie never goes back to them. I don’t think it spoils the overall film, though.


The cinematography was beautifully done, as well. The color arrangements were eye-catching. If anything, the film is just great to watch with or without sound (or subtitles). And one thing that I felt about this film that I rarely feel about other films is that this movie is a work of art, but without being pompous. Most art films try way too hard and oftentimes fall short under the weight of their self-indulgence. But not this one. It’s fun, quirky, and beautifully shot. And that’s about all I can say about Amélie.


Photobucket
Royale With Cheese

1.22.2009

DVD Review: Repo! The Genetic Opera.

So the nearly year-long wait is over. I’ve finally seen it. I would have reviewed this sooner, but I honestly needed to watch it twice. After the first viewing, I was left without any real words to describe how I felt about the film. After the second viewing, I’m almost in the same boat as the first viewing, but I’m pretty sure I’ve got some better thoughts in order.


In the not-too-distant future, a worldwide epidemic of organ failure spreads death and chaos. But then Rotti Largo (Paul Sorvino) builds GeneCo, a company that will lend you brand new organs and other such body parts, but at a price. And if you can’t pay your debts, they send out a Repo Man, a legalized assassin, to come and kill you and take back whatever it is you had put in. But now Rotti is dying and needs to give his company to somebody, though he hates his three children: the violent Luigi Largo (Bill Moseley); the face-wearing Pavi Largo (Ogre); and the surgery-addicted Amber Sweet (Paris Hilton). So he then sets his eye on Shilo Wallace (Alexa Vega), the daughter of Repo Man Nathan (Anthony Head), whose deceased wife Marni (Sarah Power) used to be his own lover. Shilo has been kept locked in her home all her life by her father due to having the same lethal blood disease that killed her mother. And everything culminates at the epic Genetic Opera, headlined by Blind Mag (Sarah Brightman). And all of this is tied together with the use of comic strips and the Greek Chorus-like Graverobber (Terrance Zdunich).


If you couldn’t tell, the plot is a bit complicated. But at the same time, it isn’t. There is a lot going on, and there are a ton of plot twists, just like any normal Opera. And that’s the thing to keep in mind when going into this movie: you have to think of it like an Opera. Practically every line is sung, no matter how inconsequential. But I also think this is one of the movie’s few downfalls, as well. The movie is described (quite appropriately) like mixing Rocky Horror Picture Show (due to its absurdness) with Blade Runner (due to its dark, dystopian setting). But I also would like to attribute it to Sweeney Todd (due to the gore, as well as a few other things that I’ll be getting to).


So let me start by discussing the music, as that’s the most important part of the film. Honestly, the music is hit or miss. Like Sweeney Todd, I felt the movie had a much stronger second half (as soon as Zydrate Anatomy begins). There are two types of songs in this movie. The first type is the ‘talky’ songs, in which there are countless numbers of all throughout. These are the ones that basically get the plot from one place to the next. They can sometimes seem awkward and forced, too, like the creators just had to have every single line sung, no matter how weird or out of place it sounded. The second type is the ‘musical’ songs. These are the ones that really make the movie shine, the types of hit songs you would expect from a musical. They aren’t just little snips to go from one point to the next, but great, toe-tapping, (sometimes hard-rocking), make-you-wanna-sing-along songs.


Now, the first half of the movie was made up of a lot of the ‘talky’ songs and only a few ‘musical’ songs tossed in. But while the ‘musical’ songs were good, they were just too few and far between. And the first half was much more focused on the gore than the music, it seemed. But once the second half starts up with Zydrate Anatomy (personally, one of my favorites in the film), the gore nearly disappears and becomes a more alluded-to thing. And then the movie has almost completely become one great ‘musical’ number after the next, with only a couple ‘talky’ songs thrown in.


And even though it’s a Rock Opera, there are many different types of songs to find in the film. There’s the heavy rock, the grunge rock, and even a bit of actual Opera. But ironically, it’s the Opera, I feel, that seems most out-of-place in the movie. Luckily, though, the Opera-esque songs are few and far between, and they’re only sung by Sarah Brightman and Paul Sorvino, who both have amazing voices.


And to get on to the actual singers/actors, let me first start with those aforementioned two. Sarah Brightman is, by far, the best singer in the film, even though she’s physically not in it a whole lot. But her Chase the Morning is another one of the best songs of the film, and it’s one of the most inventive, as the refrain is sung by Sarah Power’s Marni through a hologram ejected from her eyes. It’s nuts. On the other hand, Paul Sorvino, while he has a great voice, gets the worst songs of the film. They have him singing all over the place, doing a huge chunk of the ‘talky’ songs, and sometimes even interchanging mid-song from the ‘talky’ voice to his ‘Opera’ voice. Needless to say, that did not bode well with me.


But after Sarah Brightman, the two I felt had the best voices (and songs) in the film were Anthony Head (whom you might recognize as Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and Terrance Zdunich (who is actually one of the co-creators of the original stage play, as well as reprising his role as the Graverobber). These two men actually had the ability to make even the ‘talky’ songs entertaining, which is good, considering a good chunk of what they did were along those lines. But of course I had to give it out to Terrance, as Zydrate Anatomy is basically his big number. But the only thing about Anthony Head that seemed a bit weird was he had a Gollum/Sméagol (or maybe Batman/Bruce Wayne—Christian Bale version) thing going on. He would flip back and forth from loving/caring father and crazy Repo Man, altering his voice to go along with it.


Then, of course, we have Alexa Vega, who actually does really well (I would hope, since she’s basically the main character). Her voice cracks every now and then, but I think that was a character thing. And finally, the Largo siblings: Paris Hilton, Bill Moseley, and Ogre. Let me just put it this way: Paris Hilton was the least irritating of the three. Actually, I agree with most reviews of the film. Paris Hilton was born for the role and does it perfectly. But then again, that’s not hard to do when the role you’re playing is a spoiled, talentless heiress to a multi-billion dollar corporation. Ogre wasn’t too bad, either. He just had a distractingly cliché Italian (for no reason) voice. Though he did wear the (painted white) faces of his female lovers that he’d killed, which is neat. Though the worst casting, by far, in the entire movie, was Bill Moseley. He acted the part way too over-the-top, annoyingly, and just plain silly. It was totally out of tone for the movie, and his singing wasn’t that hot, either. He and Ogre were like the unneeded jesters of the film, ruining the overall mood.


So I’ve talked about the plot. I’ve talked about the music. I’ve talked about the singers/actors. I guess I could comment on a few of the littler things. For instance, I’m still not sure what to make of the comics-o-exposition that are scattered throughout the movie. The movie itself begins with a 3-minute sometimes-animated comic strip that gives the backstory of the movie. And then, at random intervals, the movie will freeze-frame on a character and give their sketched self to segue into the comic book ‘backstory’ of that character. I suppose it’s an interesting and unique way of doing it, and it does save time showing the little strips of explanation. But at the same time, it gets somewhat old after a while. Not to mention, depending on your TV, some of the text on the comic strips can be cut off on the screen, so you have to make some quick (though usually easy) guesses as to what’s written there (as none of it is read to you in voice-over or anything).


Overall, the movie fell a bit shorter than what I had expected. It tried a bit too hard at times to keep its non-stop singing ‘Rock Opera’ thing. The ‘talky’ songs only worked half the time; the other half they were just forced and awkward. But the ‘musical’ songs, practically every single one of them, were excellent. And the movie does have its fair share of those. But the film also has trouble with its tone. Sometimes it tries to be dark and broody. Sometimes it tries to be slapstick and silly. I think it should have picked one or the other—either it took itself seriously or it didn’t. Like I said, even though there are some really good songs in the first half, I much preferred the second half of the film. Finally, something I didn’t really comment on before, the movie itself (visually) looks excellent. There are so many great visuals, from the costumes to the settings. My final verdict? I’d say check it out, but make sure to know what you’re getting yourself into beforehand. Plus, any movie that can actually make Paris Hilton look good (by any definition of that word—looks, acting, singing) is a movie to check out.


Photobucket
A Keanu 'Whoa'

12.22.2008

DVD Review: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

So I saw this when it came out for free on the internet a while back, but the DVD was just released (exclusively through Amazon), and I just got in my copy, and I’ve been watching it all afternoon. For those of you who don’t know, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog is Joss Whedon’s (of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly/Serenity fame) newest venture into the cult fan base. It stars Neil Patrick Harris as Dr. Horrible, an up-and-coming super-villain who just wants to make it into the Evil League of Evil. He posts up blogs on the internet that portray his life of crime, his crush on fellow Laundromat companion, Penny (Felicia Day), and how the overly cheesy Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion) continues to ruin his life. Oh, and it’s a musical.


The ‘movie’ itself is only about 40 minutes long, but it feels like a full-blown film in how it really just pulls you in with its characters and story. You root for Dr. Horrible, even though he’s evil, and you loathe Captain Hammer, even though he’s technically the superhero. It just shows, yet again, the amazing writing of Joss Whedon.


And the music itself is incredibly catchy and all really good. My personal favorite is “Brand New Day,” but everybody has their own. And boy can they all sing, including Neil Patrick Harris. He has an amazing voice. Felicia Day does, as well. Nathan Fillion is the weakest, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s Nathan Fillion. He’s awesome in everything. Not to mention the cheesiness factor of his character offsets any care about his singing ability (it’s not bad, mind you. It’s just no Neil Patrick Harris).


But why buy the DVD when you can watch it online for free, you ask (and legally)? Well, for one, most of the online copies you can find are poor quality and the audio is off from the video. Oh, and you have to watch all three Acts separately (unless you somehow download them and merge them together with an editing program). But then there’s all the special bonus features on the DVD that are so worth it. Besides the behind-the-scenes featurettes, which are always fun, you have (fan) audition videos for the Evil League of Evil, wherein all but about 2 of them (and there’s 30 minutes worth) are musicals themselves.


And then there are TWO commentaries. And you might be asking… two commentaries for a 40 minute movie? What’s the point? Well, one of the commentaries is a musical! Yes, you heard me right. They recorded a whole other slew of songs that span the entire movie—commentary style. There’s a couple that could have used some work, honestly, but then there are some really good ones that rival even some of the songs in the movie. The topics range from the writer’s strike to how the cast feels about each other to why certain actors took certain roles and how they felt about that. And it’s really a whole new experience from the movie itself. In fact, you can watch the 40 minute movie, and then turn on the musical commentary and watch it over again, and then you’ll have a full-length feature… sort of.


But anyway, I really recommend this DVD, especially if you’re a fan of one of the following: superheroes, super-villains, musicals, Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, Joss Whedon, blogging, horses, freeze rays, laundry, or frozen yogurt. So yeah… go get it. It’s only available through Amazon, though. But it’s worth it.


Photobucket
Royale With Cheese