Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
BONUS ACE OF MOVIES! - Fight Night!
In the 1980s, one of the biggest recurring storylines in films was Kid in the Suburbs Versus Supernatural Evil. The Lost Boys, The Monster Squad, and a hundred other movies right on the edge of being too scary for kids introduced a generation to the idea of horror movies, and created a legion of fans that still exists today. While this particular genre has all but died, Dreamworks is attempting to give it another go with a remake of one of that era's seminal movies - Fright Night.
Disclaimer up front: I never saw the original Fright Night, so this review will contain exactly zero comparisons between the new version and the old one. I'm thinking of digging it up now, though, so maybe that'll be an article for another time.
The 2011 version of Fright Night follows Charlie (Anton Yelchin), a high school kid who used to be a nerd, and his fight against his next door neighbor, an evil vampire named Jerry (Colin Ferell.) This review is going to have at least minor spoilers about the plot, without giving away too much of the major twists and turns, so if you want to remain completely spoiler free, here's a quick summary: Fright Night is a fun movie that doesn't really know what it wants to be, has some very good performances and some very disappointing twists, but is worth your time to see, if not to see at full price in theaters.
But, of course, you don't care about any of that. You want to know about the reason thousands of geeks will see this movie: David Tennant. David, also known as the Tenth Doctor to most, plays Peter Vincent, a Las Vegas Magician and "Vampire Hunter." He's the stand out role in the movie, and the most comfortable, funny, and at times even badass actor in the film. If you're gonna see this movie just for Mr. Tennant, you won't be disappointed by his character or his screen time. The only (slight) problem I had with his performance was that Vincent is the chief exposition-giver for the film, and when David dumps the plot on you, he still sounds just like The Doctor. I understand, it's hard to distance yourself from a character you've played for four years, but I would've liked to see more of a difference in Vincent so I wasn't constantly thinking he was going to jump in the TARDIS and fly away.
While we're on the subject of actors, the rest of the performances in the film are mixed. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, as always, steals the show. Sure, he's playing a very similar character to his character from Superbad, but it's always enjoyable to watch him work, and he does get to stretch his acting wings in the single most terrifying scene in the film. Imogen Poots, winner of the most hilarious name of the year, is servicable as the typical girlfriend, and Toni Collette is great as the mom. Besides David Tennant, the standout is Colin Ferrell, who manages to be exceptionally evil while also being exceptionally laid back. While he has some funny moments in the film, you feel that Jerry is an unstoppable monstrous killing machine every time he's on screen. The disappointment is the usually fantastic Anton Yelchin, but it seems to be more the material's fault than his. He just doesn't have the chance to work in the talent he showed in other, better movies like Star Trek and Charlie Bartlett.
I mentioned earlier that the film doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be, and that's very true. While I haven't seen the original Fright Night, other movies of the era had a good balance of horror and comedy, and the new version certainly tries for that. The problem is, unlike the movies of the 80s, this Fright Night is a hard R, with a ton of blood and truly horrible things happening to people. Some of it is so jarring, that to go to a joke ten seconds afterwards seems almost inappropriate. The scenes of terror are terrifying, and the scenes of humor are very funny, but they never seem to blend together in the great cocktail of say, a good Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode. It's like watching two good movies stuck together with the barest of glue, and the result is really jarring.
There's also a major problem in this film's inciting incident, and to tell you about it we're gonna have to talk with some spoilers. Again, only read this paragraph if you want to be spoiled, otherwise jump ahead. Here we go.
I mentioned how great Christopher Mintz-Plasse is in the film. We learn early on that his character, Evil Ed, and Charlie used to be best friends. Charlie has since moved on from being a geek, and is trying, and failing, to be a popular kid instead, complete with terrible friends and a hot, seemingly shallow blond girlfriend. In trying to hold on his new identity, Charlie is absolutely awful to Ed, and abandons him when he needs him most, leaving Ed alone to run into the very real world danger of an angry bully, Mark, and then finally to his death at the hands of Jerry. Ed returns, later in the film, turned into a vampire and evil, and Charlie is forced to kill him. This is an interesting motivation for your main character, but the film never seems to spend any time on Charlie feeling any remorse at all for what he did. The most we get are a few, short, throwaway scenes about the man dealing with the fact that his best friend's death is undeniably his fault. On top of this, Mark the bully gets his just desserts half-way through the movie, and is eaten by Jerry in a great scene. Which is great - except that at the end of the film, when Jerry is killed by a magical stake that saves his victims, Mark gets away just fine and Ed stays dead. Considering how often the original 80s movies were morality plays, it's disappointing to see the most loveable character in the film meet a horrible end while the bully gets away without so much as a scratch.
Spoilers over! Hooray!
Fright Night, all in all, is a fun movie and I enjoyed myself. But I wouldn't expect a great film, and I don't know that I'd recommend paying the $10-15 you'll need to see it in theaters. If you're desperate to see David Tennant and you can't wait, his role is worth it, but I would wait for the inevitable DVD, Blu-ray or Netflix to watch this one.
Disclaimer up front: I never saw the original Fright Night, so this review will contain exactly zero comparisons between the new version and the old one. I'm thinking of digging it up now, though, so maybe that'll be an article for another time.
The 2011 version of Fright Night follows Charlie (Anton Yelchin), a high school kid who used to be a nerd, and his fight against his next door neighbor, an evil vampire named Jerry (Colin Ferell.) This review is going to have at least minor spoilers about the plot, without giving away too much of the major twists and turns, so if you want to remain completely spoiler free, here's a quick summary: Fright Night is a fun movie that doesn't really know what it wants to be, has some very good performances and some very disappointing twists, but is worth your time to see, if not to see at full price in theaters.
But, of course, you don't care about any of that. You want to know about the reason thousands of geeks will see this movie: David Tennant. David, also known as the Tenth Doctor to most, plays Peter Vincent, a Las Vegas Magician and "Vampire Hunter." He's the stand out role in the movie, and the most comfortable, funny, and at times even badass actor in the film. If you're gonna see this movie just for Mr. Tennant, you won't be disappointed by his character or his screen time. The only (slight) problem I had with his performance was that Vincent is the chief exposition-giver for the film, and when David dumps the plot on you, he still sounds just like The Doctor. I understand, it's hard to distance yourself from a character you've played for four years, but I would've liked to see more of a difference in Vincent so I wasn't constantly thinking he was going to jump in the TARDIS and fly away.
While we're on the subject of actors, the rest of the performances in the film are mixed. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, as always, steals the show. Sure, he's playing a very similar character to his character from Superbad, but it's always enjoyable to watch him work, and he does get to stretch his acting wings in the single most terrifying scene in the film. Imogen Poots, winner of the most hilarious name of the year, is servicable as the typical girlfriend, and Toni Collette is great as the mom. Besides David Tennant, the standout is Colin Ferrell, who manages to be exceptionally evil while also being exceptionally laid back. While he has some funny moments in the film, you feel that Jerry is an unstoppable monstrous killing machine every time he's on screen. The disappointment is the usually fantastic Anton Yelchin, but it seems to be more the material's fault than his. He just doesn't have the chance to work in the talent he showed in other, better movies like Star Trek and Charlie Bartlett.
I mentioned earlier that the film doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be, and that's very true. While I haven't seen the original Fright Night, other movies of the era had a good balance of horror and comedy, and the new version certainly tries for that. The problem is, unlike the movies of the 80s, this Fright Night is a hard R, with a ton of blood and truly horrible things happening to people. Some of it is so jarring, that to go to a joke ten seconds afterwards seems almost inappropriate. The scenes of terror are terrifying, and the scenes of humor are very funny, but they never seem to blend together in the great cocktail of say, a good Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode. It's like watching two good movies stuck together with the barest of glue, and the result is really jarring.
There's also a major problem in this film's inciting incident, and to tell you about it we're gonna have to talk with some spoilers. Again, only read this paragraph if you want to be spoiled, otherwise jump ahead. Here we go.
I mentioned how great Christopher Mintz-Plasse is in the film. We learn early on that his character, Evil Ed, and Charlie used to be best friends. Charlie has since moved on from being a geek, and is trying, and failing, to be a popular kid instead, complete with terrible friends and a hot, seemingly shallow blond girlfriend. In trying to hold on his new identity, Charlie is absolutely awful to Ed, and abandons him when he needs him most, leaving Ed alone to run into the very real world danger of an angry bully, Mark, and then finally to his death at the hands of Jerry. Ed returns, later in the film, turned into a vampire and evil, and Charlie is forced to kill him. This is an interesting motivation for your main character, but the film never seems to spend any time on Charlie feeling any remorse at all for what he did. The most we get are a few, short, throwaway scenes about the man dealing with the fact that his best friend's death is undeniably his fault. On top of this, Mark the bully gets his just desserts half-way through the movie, and is eaten by Jerry in a great scene. Which is great - except that at the end of the film, when Jerry is killed by a magical stake that saves his victims, Mark gets away just fine and Ed stays dead. Considering how often the original 80s movies were morality plays, it's disappointing to see the most loveable character in the film meet a horrible end while the bully gets away without so much as a scratch.
Spoilers over! Hooray!
Fright Night, all in all, is a fun movie and I enjoyed myself. But I wouldn't expect a great film, and I don't know that I'd recommend paying the $10-15 you'll need to see it in theaters. If you're desperate to see David Tennant and you can't wait, his role is worth it, but I would wait for the inevitable DVD, Blu-ray or Netflix to watch this one.
Friday, August 19, 2011
What's wrong with the Special Editions?
I ran into an interesting thing today: a forum user who had never seen the original versions of Star Wars. He created a topic asking why so many people hated the new versions, and what it was about the changes that made them so bad. Since I typed up a fairly massive response, I thought it might be fun to post it here, too, and see what you all think.
Here's the changes Lucas made, and why they're bad.
1) THE CHANGE: CG EFFECTS
WHY IT'S BAD: The original model effects, if you look at them today, still hold up. The spaceships still look like spaceships, and everything just has a since of realism to it. The effects from 1997, while amazing then, are already dated and give the film an unrealistic, cartoony look. Kids looking at it today will be pulled out into saying "Oh, it's an old movie," instead of "Oh man, this is a great story!"
2) THE CHANGE: ADDED SEQUENCES
WHY IT'S BAD: The added Jabba the Hutt sequence isn't so bad, it actually adds some background to Han Solo's character and introduces a major villain. The problem is that that info was already given two seconds ago in the Greedo scene, which, combined with the problems with Jabba's CG effect (see above) and the fact that you suddenly have to believe Jabba gained around ten thousand pounds in two years to be as big as he is in Jedi...it's not that great.
The other sequences he adds all add time in places where the film doesn't need it. There are two huge song and dance sequences added that really take away from the atmosphere of Jabba's Palace and the Mos Eisley Cantina, giving it more of a cutesy kid film feel. And there's other places, like an intro to Mos Eisley itself that stretches the establishing shot and prevents us from getting into the action.
3) THE CHANGE: HAN SHOOTS SECOND
WHY IT'S BAD: This is the big one, the one people sort of rally around whenever we talk about why the changes take away from the original trilogy. Han Solo, when you first meet him, is a mysterious, mercenary character. While he's funny, we're never really, truly sure what side he's on until he saves Luke, and the Greedo scene is a big part of that. The revelation that Han Solo has a heart of gold underneath it all is an important one to the character, and part of the reason why he's so loved today, and to have him only fire in self defense gives it away early.
New podcast should be coming soon, folks, so keep an eye on the site, and keep sending us your lists of top five superhero movies! We'll be announcing the full top ten list soon!
Mike
Here's the changes Lucas made, and why they're bad.
1) THE CHANGE: CG EFFECTS
WHY IT'S BAD: The original model effects, if you look at them today, still hold up. The spaceships still look like spaceships, and everything just has a since of realism to it. The effects from 1997, while amazing then, are already dated and give the film an unrealistic, cartoony look. Kids looking at it today will be pulled out into saying "Oh, it's an old movie," instead of "Oh man, this is a great story!"
2) THE CHANGE: ADDED SEQUENCES
WHY IT'S BAD: The added Jabba the Hutt sequence isn't so bad, it actually adds some background to Han Solo's character and introduces a major villain. The problem is that that info was already given two seconds ago in the Greedo scene, which, combined with the problems with Jabba's CG effect (see above) and the fact that you suddenly have to believe Jabba gained around ten thousand pounds in two years to be as big as he is in Jedi...it's not that great.
The other sequences he adds all add time in places where the film doesn't need it. There are two huge song and dance sequences added that really take away from the atmosphere of Jabba's Palace and the Mos Eisley Cantina, giving it more of a cutesy kid film feel. And there's other places, like an intro to Mos Eisley itself that stretches the establishing shot and prevents us from getting into the action.
3) THE CHANGE: HAN SHOOTS SECOND
WHY IT'S BAD: This is the big one, the one people sort of rally around whenever we talk about why the changes take away from the original trilogy. Han Solo, when you first meet him, is a mysterious, mercenary character. While he's funny, we're never really, truly sure what side he's on until he saves Luke, and the Greedo scene is a big part of that. The revelation that Han Solo has a heart of gold underneath it all is an important one to the character, and part of the reason why he's so loved today, and to have him only fire in self defense gives it away early.
New podcast should be coming soon, folks, so keep an eye on the site, and keep sending us your lists of top five superhero movies! We'll be announcing the full top ten list soon!
Mike
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Ep 23 - A Weak Man Knows the Value of Strength
For your consideration, dear listeners, our 23rd Episode (Fnord). Bonus: anyone who can guess how our theme music relates to this episode wins this Shiny Internet....and the first to email us gets mention and praise on the next podcast. Special thanks to our guest Morihiro Tsuruta
Episode 23
Monday, July 18, 2011
Episode 22 - Reviews, reviews, reviews
The Ace of Geeks Podcast welcomes back guest commentators Ian Ballantyne and Mae Linh Fatum for an ALL REVIEW PODCAST! Woooo! Within, we'll discuss LA Noire, Conquest of Nerath, Dominion, Panty Explosion, Hex Hex and the return of Ian's Anime Corner!
Episode 22!
Episode 22!
Monday, July 11, 2011
Episode 21 - Interview with Miracle of Sound!
The Ace of Geeks gets their second interview off the ground, and it's a good one - Gavin Dunne, better known around these internet parts as Miracle of Sound. You've heard his song, the Commander Shepard song, on our show before, and today we talk with him about his influences, his favorite video games, and what he's got coming up next. Also, Jarys and Mike discuss Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and then Jarys, Mike and Gavin discuss Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Episode 21!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Bonus ACE OF MOVIES! - Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Almost spoiler free!)
The first ten minutes of Transformers: Dark of the Moon are a perfect metaphor for the movie as a whole. It begins with a brilliant idea - the space race of the 1960s was caused by an alien craft crash landing on our moon. The Americans and Soviets both detected it, and the race was on. We're treated to period recreations, convincing impersonators of Kennedy and Nixon, and green screen insertions on the level of Forrest Gump all mixed with the actual footage from the first landing on the moon, leading to a really interesting and almost inspiring set up for the film.
Then we cut to present day, and a nearly minute long close-up of Rose Huntington-Whiteley's rear end in panties.
Dark of the Moon is the first film I've seen since Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof that can switch from unwatchable to amazing at the drop of the hat, and it does it - often. I've said before of other, much worse movies like X-men Origins: Wolverine that they felt like they were written and shot by six different people - this feels more like it was put together by two of Michael Bay's personalities. After the amazing opening, the beginning of the film stays firmly away from the main attraction of the Transformers series - the transforming robots - and instead treats us to the same kind of "character development" and "comedy" that made Revenge of the Fallen one of the most disappointing sequels in recent memory. We follow the main characters as they deal with mundane aspects of their lives, and famous actors like John Malkovich and Dr. Ken Jeong appear in brief cameos, mugging it harder than Will Ferrell at his worst. It's surprising there's any scenery left with all the chewing being done. Unfortunately, while the talent is there, most of the jokes are best tired, and at worst, homophobic, leaving the whole thing feeling like an internet video gone bad.
Meanwhile, the Transformers deal with their plot and their Macguffin off in space at the moon and on earth, blowing things up and discussing deep, robot-y matters in grave voices in scenes barely given the time to shine. Every minute Starscream is on screen in the first film is more interesting than Shia LaBeouf's antics, but Starscream only gets two minutes and Shia gets thirty. I ended up rolling my eyes and nearly getting up and walking out before the movie annoyed me anymore.
I'm glad I stayed. Suddenly, at around a third or halfway through the film, two plot points happen in rapid succession. I don't want to give either one away, because they surprised the hell out of me. And suddenly, the film grabs you by the shoulders, throws you back in your seat, and says "pay attention, we'll be making a good movie now." The annoying comedy doesn't go away entirely, but it's shoved into tiny pieces and the Autobots and humans fighting the Decepticons is suddenly front and center for the rest of the film. This culminates in a nearly hour long action sequence, that while stretches too long in some places and still focuses way too much on Shia, is so intense and interesting that I forgot to complain about it at the time. My intellect kept trying to rise to the surface, and my inner eight year old kept punching it in the mouth and saying, "Shut up, Optimus Prime is talking."
On that note, I will admit nostalgia can carry something a long way with me. Optimus Prime is one of the cartoon icons who taught me right from wrong when I was a kid, and Peter Cullen's voice lends a gravitas to the character that I don't think can ever be matched. But I also have to look at this film as different from the Robots in Disguise of my childhood. The Optimus I grew up with would never have said lines like "We're going to kill you all." So I think it's a credit that the movie was exciting enough that I even got past changes made to something I loved as a child - a hard thing for any geek to do.
I saw the movie in large-screen 3D, and once again the theory is proved that if you shoot the movie in 3D instead of just post-converting it, the 3D will look fantastic. It does, here, and it provides an unexpected benefit. Michael Bay was forced by the 3D techniques to back out of most of his action sequences, and as a result we can see what's going on a lot of the time and even tell which robot is which.
There's been a lot of talk about how Michael Bay is the master of the mindless action movie. I don't know if that's true (I've seen The Island, after all), but I do know he made a damn fine action piece with this film. And if you can sit through the opening tedium and awkwardness, there's a great movie waiting for you on the other side. It has interesting characters, great cameos, a few funny jokes, and absolutely knock your socks off robot fights. But you have to sit through the beginning to get there. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, wait for the DVD. But if you're a Transformers fan, or a fan of explosive, world ending action flicks, you should see this one now.
Then we cut to present day, and a nearly minute long close-up of Rose Huntington-Whiteley's rear end in panties.
Dark of the Moon is the first film I've seen since Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof that can switch from unwatchable to amazing at the drop of the hat, and it does it - often. I've said before of other, much worse movies like X-men Origins: Wolverine that they felt like they were written and shot by six different people - this feels more like it was put together by two of Michael Bay's personalities. After the amazing opening, the beginning of the film stays firmly away from the main attraction of the Transformers series - the transforming robots - and instead treats us to the same kind of "character development" and "comedy" that made Revenge of the Fallen one of the most disappointing sequels in recent memory. We follow the main characters as they deal with mundane aspects of their lives, and famous actors like John Malkovich and Dr. Ken Jeong appear in brief cameos, mugging it harder than Will Ferrell at his worst. It's surprising there's any scenery left with all the chewing being done. Unfortunately, while the talent is there, most of the jokes are best tired, and at worst, homophobic, leaving the whole thing feeling like an internet video gone bad.
Meanwhile, the Transformers deal with their plot and their Macguffin off in space at the moon and on earth, blowing things up and discussing deep, robot-y matters in grave voices in scenes barely given the time to shine. Every minute Starscream is on screen in the first film is more interesting than Shia LaBeouf's antics, but Starscream only gets two minutes and Shia gets thirty. I ended up rolling my eyes and nearly getting up and walking out before the movie annoyed me anymore.
I'm glad I stayed. Suddenly, at around a third or halfway through the film, two plot points happen in rapid succession. I don't want to give either one away, because they surprised the hell out of me. And suddenly, the film grabs you by the shoulders, throws you back in your seat, and says "pay attention, we'll be making a good movie now." The annoying comedy doesn't go away entirely, but it's shoved into tiny pieces and the Autobots and humans fighting the Decepticons is suddenly front and center for the rest of the film. This culminates in a nearly hour long action sequence, that while stretches too long in some places and still focuses way too much on Shia, is so intense and interesting that I forgot to complain about it at the time. My intellect kept trying to rise to the surface, and my inner eight year old kept punching it in the mouth and saying, "Shut up, Optimus Prime is talking."
On that note, I will admit nostalgia can carry something a long way with me. Optimus Prime is one of the cartoon icons who taught me right from wrong when I was a kid, and Peter Cullen's voice lends a gravitas to the character that I don't think can ever be matched. But I also have to look at this film as different from the Robots in Disguise of my childhood. The Optimus I grew up with would never have said lines like "We're going to kill you all." So I think it's a credit that the movie was exciting enough that I even got past changes made to something I loved as a child - a hard thing for any geek to do.
I saw the movie in large-screen 3D, and once again the theory is proved that if you shoot the movie in 3D instead of just post-converting it, the 3D will look fantastic. It does, here, and it provides an unexpected benefit. Michael Bay was forced by the 3D techniques to back out of most of his action sequences, and as a result we can see what's going on a lot of the time and even tell which robot is which.
There's been a lot of talk about how Michael Bay is the master of the mindless action movie. I don't know if that's true (I've seen The Island, after all), but I do know he made a damn fine action piece with this film. And if you can sit through the opening tedium and awkwardness, there's a great movie waiting for you on the other side. It has interesting characters, great cameos, a few funny jokes, and absolutely knock your socks off robot fights. But you have to sit through the beginning to get there. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, wait for the DVD. But if you're a Transformers fan, or a fan of explosive, world ending action flicks, you should see this one now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)