Movies seen:
Captain America: The First Avenger
Freejack
What the Bleep Do We Know?!
Gymkata
The Wedding Date
Mona Lisa Smile
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011):
I have often seen this movie listed as the best of the
“first wave” of Marvel movies, up against Thor and Iron Man 2. While I don’t
think this is a bad movie, it is not my favorite of those, and subsequent rewatching
has only cemented that. Captain America has a very strong 1st and 2nd
act. Steve Rogers the man is established early in the movie as someone to
respect, admire, and feel a little sorry for. The naivety of his goodness is
something we want all our heroes to have, and I think is a vision most people associate
with Superman. Doing good because bad is bad, no matter what the stakes (schtakes).
Once Rogers becomes Captain America, we get treated to a sample of what one man
could do for his country during WW2 (dubya dubya deuce, or the triple D), as he
is sidelined as a circus attraction like I’m sure many celebrity soldiers were during the time.
It all falls apart for me after the big rescue scene and Red Skull’s reveal.
Then it is action point, quip, action point, tragedy, quip, action point. As
fun and inspiring as the first two acts were, the third is just another action
movie for me. I do like what is set up at the end with the “teseract”. Not that
it survives the crash landing, but what it does to Red Skull, appearing to
launch him into space one atom at a time. I hope that particular plot point is
picked up in a different movie *cough* Guardians of the Galaxy *cough*. I guess
I’ll have to wait and see, but I think it will probably just be a point to
start my Red Skull in space fan fiction.
Freejack (1992):
The first movie in my January project, Freejack was one of
the movies I bought in an unwise purchasing spree whilst being addicted to the
Film Sack podcast. There are a couple of those movies in the January project,
and hopefully they will be at least as acceptable to view as this one was.
Freejack establishes a dystopian Los Angeles (I assume it’s Los Angeles, I
don’t think they actually say in the film) where millionaires can pay to have
their minds uploaded to the “spiritual switchboard” after death, and then
transferred into a new body, usual consisting of a young person from the past
who has been whisked away by a time device moments before their own death.
Phew! That is a synopsis. Although that sounds complicated, the movie itself
doesn’t deal with the science behind such ideas (thank God) and is mostly a
chase movie. Young, sexy race car driver Emilio Estevez must run for his life
through the drudges of the future so as not to end up as Anthony Hopkins’ new
vessel. The movie isn’t that bad. Not that good, but I have seen MANY worse
sci-fi movies. Mick Jagger as one of the villains is pretty goofy. He walks
around most of the time in a weird helmet, and is in my opinion the highlight
of the film. What makes the movie special? The 90’s effects probably. The
goofy(there is no other word for it so I’ll use it again) cars and people are
kind of a car-accident-can’t-look-away type that I personally treasure, mostly
as a snap shot of late 80’s early 90’s future envisioning. There are also a
couple fantastic visual effects moments that use early CGI green screening, a
la Lawnmower Man. I don’t know. I guess I’m just a sucker for this kind of
crap.
What the #$*! (K)now!? (2004):
January project film #2. This is one of Sarah’s movies. She
was sure I would hate it. I was sure I would hate it. Perhaps setting my
expectations so low was the key to me not hating it. The “documentary” has
quite a few flaws, but I don’t think the underlying message is one of them. Let
me just get what is bad about it out of the way. Almost all of the non-talking
head scenes are bad. Nothing wrong with Marlee Matlin’s performance at all, but
everything else? Everyone else? Yuck. The computer animated bits were mostly
non-sense cartoon crap, with a creepy emphasis on sexuality. And finally,
trying to base the opinions of the film behind science was a HUGE mistake. They
keep throwing out the term “quantum physics” the way food companies throw out
“natural”, except quantum physics is a thing that can be scrutinized by members
of the scientific community. You can’t just declare something science and hope
no one checks up on you. The movie emphasizes the pursuit of knowledge, and I
am 100 percent behind that, especially when it comes to the stories this movie
parades. My spirituality is very personal, as it should be in my opinion, but I
am willing to admit that some of the ideas of the movie are not outside of my
own beliefs. I believe everything is connected on an atomic level, unperceivable
to human kind. I don’t believe that time is constant and that it is possible to
revisit the past. I believe the power of thought can change a person for the
better. I do not believe it can PHYSICALLY change the world, because that is
bullshit. I believe in something bigger than myself and everyone else. I believe
that science is the tool we need to understand anything, and should not be
ignored, used for misinformation, or taken lightly. In the end, I can recommend
this movie if you are willing to watch it like any other documentary should be
watched, with your eyes open and your skepticism set to 10.
Gymkata (1985):
Jeez, I don’t even know what to write about this movie. This
is film #3 in the January film project, one that I picked up because one of my
favorite critics, Matt Singer, had waxed the merits of the film many times.
Plus, it was like 7 bucks on Amazon. What I’m saying is, Matt, Mr. Singer, if
you read this, you owe me so freaking bad. Let me lay it to you straight here.
I listen to 3 separate movie podcast whose entire purpose is to talk solely
about bad movies. If you’re interested, those are Film Sack, How Did this Get
Made, and The Flophouse. All are excellent for different reasons. I have a keen
interest in bad movies, but usually I resist the urge to watch them myself
because I don’t like dealing with the inevitable headache that follows. I would
much rather live vicariously through funny people and my friends than sit
through the mega-ton of bad movies that are out there. Life’s too short right? Gymkata
is without a doubt a bad movie. The movie runs about 90 minutes, but I swear to
all that is Holy I watched it for a week. The story is so convoluted that it is
beyond description or explanation. Really! I tried to explain the plot to
Sarah, and I had to stop because I was laughing too hysterically. Not the kind
of laughter associated with a joyous occasion but rather the kind heard from an
insane asylum. I compare it unfavorable
to Krull, where in that movie a universe must be built to explain the bat-shit
crazy things that happen, while Gymkata is bat-shit in our world, and there IS
NO REASON. Now, one might assume I am over thinking the movie. After all, it is
supposed to be an action movie, and the average action movie doesn’t require
much thinking. While it is true that skimming over the revolution subplot of
Commando is an easy task due mostly to the action and fun filled dialogue, the
action of Gymkata is subpar at best, and whenever you think you can safely
detach from the film’s goofball plot, another detail is thrown in by adding
another character with motivations and WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HELP ME!!!!
Ok. I'm alright. Deep breaths. There is one action sequence that is worth
seeing out of the entirety of the movie, and that is the city of the mad
(village of the crazies, whatever) section. Go to YouTube and look it up. At
least you will get a few laughs out of the insanity.
The Wedding Date (2005):
#4 on the January film project list, The Wedding Date is one
of Sarah’s movies. I am not very kind to rom-coms in general, as I find most of
their plots derivative and their characters uninteresting. Say the words comic
relief to me out loud and I just might slap you. The Wedding Date clicked for
me. The plot is simple, not leaning on a quirk to reel the watcher in (well, I
guess the escort is the quirk, but I expect my quirks quirkier). The characters
are pretty darn real, not being boisterous and over the top for the sake of
entertainment. My only problem scene is the cricket game where a little camp is
thrown in, I assume to remind the viewer that yes, it is THAT kind of movie.
But every other part seems so low key and fun I can’t really hold one bad scene
against the whole movie. What I am trying to say is, The Wedding Date was a
perfectly enjoyable 90 minute snack. I’d watch it again.
Mona Lisa Smile (2003):
And now we have #5 on the January film project list, another
of Sarah’s movies. Looking at the reviews for this film, it seems that most
people don’t think much of it. Perhaps because the subject matter of a
teacher, inspiring her students in a new way much to the chagrin of the rest of
the faculty, is a well-worn movie subject and has been done in much more
dramatic movies. I can see that point of view, but I still think that this
movie is different enough to merit a chance. The snap shot of a women’s college
in the 50’s was a nice choice of setting, and the art classes were right at my
personal interest points. So, I guess this, movie catered to me specifically,
and therefore cannot be reviewed unbiased! It’s a fine movie, and not something
I intend to rewatch with any frequency, but I wouldn't turn down a screening
every once in a while.
Next week, barring interruptions like, you know, finally getting a damn job, I shall continue the January project. Some black and white fair coming up, so I am excited. Drop me a line on twitter @jdtmovies, or email at jdtmovies@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment