It's unfortunate (what might have been...my kingdom for a message board!), but considering how infrequently - sorry, I mean just plain NEVER - anyone here on OOFnet communicates with one another, I won't go into detail as to why I've been so absent lately, nor why I lack any genuine insight (what else is new?) into this fall's bouquet of cinematic contenders; suffice it to say, my life's been in heavy turmoil lately, good and bad, which is kind of a first for me. But that doesn't mean I've forsaken my dear Mass Confusion! I know this website is the tiniest of pockets on the Internet, never bound for growth or integration into the pop culture zeitgeist, and really, what do we get out of it other than a silent appraisal of a hundred strangers' movie ratings and the self-reflexive satisfaction of supplying our own? Dammit, though, I love this place. While other sites change, remodel, evolve, fall into disrepair, or vanish altogether, OOFnet is perhaps the only place on the web that's been a reliable Favorite of mine for the past decade. I'm a man of small pleasures, I think, and this one has kept me happy for ages, for basically as long as I've been using the Internet, period. True, I don't have a lot of options for use here, but if there were a way of calculating time spent here, my stats would spiral off into eternity. Who knows how or why I've managed to log in such eons exploring this rather succinct website, but it's true. It's my little home away from home. Even when I'm not actively reviewing films along with the rest of you - which has only really happened in the past couple months, since my actual life began getting so weird and change-y - I still stop by and see what's going on whenever I happen upon a moment's Internet access. If no one has rated or reviewed anything since the last time I checked, I usually look up a movie that's been on my mind lately, just to see what everyone (including myself) thought, even if I've already read that page 50 times before. Perhaps I can't explain why this behavior ISN'T excessive and sad (couldn't I find more resourceful, constructive uses of my time?), but like most of my attempted theses, all I can say in the end is: whatever, it's what I do and I like it. I'll be a champion of OOFnet for as long as Brandon and the gang are willing to let it idly exist in cyberspace (hopefully forever, but if not, please contact me - mcfly017@cox.net).
Anyway, also like most of my writing attempts, I totally lost sight of my point back there. I think I was just gonna flaccidly try to justify this new Fall Movie Preview, in light of how little I've contributed to OOFnet this past year. But of course it doesn't really matter. I'll be happy just to pretend that maybe someone on here has read this someday (because with no feedback option and an unspoken agreement between us all to resist any and all interaction, I'll never actually know if anyone even realizes I've written this, much less reads it themselves). And really, in the end it's just because I've got a writing itch that needs scratchin', and it's that time of year when I belatedly rip off every publication known to man by taking a "discerning" (read: bitchy) look at the remaining upcoming movies in what's become an accidental tradition of mine. And keep in mind, even more so than in 2007, I'm almost perfectly ignorant of every single one of these movies. Whereas before I happily devoured all movie trailers and could recite the smallest details of a film four months away from release, now with so much less time (patience?) in my life to do so, I can only offer cursory examinations of the subjects at hand. Hell, I probably won't even end up seeing 99% of them. I managed 3 whole movies this summer, each a miracle accomplishment unto itself, and it's summer! Even the bad movies are worth wasting time on, in a way, if only for the event experience and because they're all designed (theoretically) for maximum entertainment value (this precludes "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", "The Love Guru", and anything with the word "Movie" in the title). In time it will be easier to resume my regular attendance, but 2008 will definitely go down as the first year I skipped the movies.
So let's, shall we?
END OF AUGUST....
HAMLET 2 (B-) - if I hadn't already heard disheartening critiques, I'd be more enthusiastic. The title alone promises brilliance, and I'm still waiting for Steve Coogan to fulfill some kind of comic genius destiny that once seemed within his grasp...but the trailers try too hard to push buttons with too little wit, and the story isn't nearly as interesting as I imagined it being way back when. Still could be a winner on some medium level, however.
DEATH RACE (F) - even if it weren't helmed by one of the era's worst directors (Paul W.S. Anderson is just a formally competent Uwe Boll), I'd be grimacing at this for its apparent bungling of a solid B-movie premise via miscasting (grindhouse race car action + Joan Allen = does not compute; where are the necessary cult icons?) and a ruinously bland visual palette (okay, that's pure Anderson). The other parts of the movie - like the story, dialogue, action, directing, probably the font used for the credits - can only be worse from this point on.
THE HOUSE BUNNY (D-) - nothing original to say here. "Legally Blonde" is only 7 years old - time for a remake already? Fred Wolf, Anna Faris, the Playboy Mansion...it's like every aspect of that other movie, taken down a few pegs in quality. Except for the writer, who's the exact same person for both. And I thought the perky ditz in the pink costume was taking familiarity a little too far...
THE LONG SHOTS (F) - Fred Durst direc-----never mind. There's plenty to more to hate about this one, but that is WAY more than enough already.
THE ROCKER (C-) - Rainn Wilson is good on "The Office", but he seems either premature for movie stardom or disserviced by this particular uninspired project, too reminiscent of a Will Ferrell vehicle and/or "School of Rock 2". Maybe it's just these buffoonishly overzealous man-child roles becoming too numerous in movies lately. Time for a new brand of comic hero, guys. C'mon, it doesn't always have to be the same.
DISASTER MOVIE (FFFFFFFFFFFF) - my hatred for Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer's spoof franchise transcends mere movie fan griping - I really wish they would die. I know I've used the label "criminal" on other moments, people, acts, and entire films in this business, but before it was always an exaggeration of my discontent. Here, these dipshits should seriously be prosecuted. The lampoon may be a permanently disgraced sub-genre already, but once upon a time it generated moments of sheer comic beauty ("Young Frankenstein", "Blazing Saddles", "Airplane", "The Naked Gun", "Hot Shots", "Top Secret!", "Spinal Tap"). How much lower can it get than this? Not just for spoofs, not just for comedies, not just for movies, but for entertainment itself?
BABYLON A.D. (D) - something I know very little about. A sci-fi action movie with Vin Diesel and Michelle Yeoh, with a clunky wannabe-stylish trailer. Sounds ripe.
TRAITOR (C+) - I could take or leave the political thriller plot, but Don Cheadle, Jeff Daniels, and Guy Pearce (where you been?) give it a slight edge. Its slim marketing effort, interchangeable subject, and the odd fact that Steve Martin conceived the story leave very little hope for success, but it might be fun to see these excellent actors do intense work.
COLLEGE (C+) - on one hand, yay a merciless teen party comedy! On the other, I'm not a teenager anymore, the biggest consequence of which is that I don't recognize or particularly like any of the young actors in this, a factor that played a large part in my identification with teen films from my own era (the '90s). So maybe I'll just be alienated. Plus the advertising is pushing the "Superbad" + "generation-defining event" angle too hard, perhaps to compensate for a crappy product. It's unfortunately difficult for teen movies to turn out well, so I'll reserve hope (and sorry, but could that title be any worse? Have a personality, why don't you).
SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO (B-) - Takashi Miike's latest is another soupy combo of disparate oddities - comedy, action, western, bad acting, fake sets, Quentin Tarantino (wait I already said bad acting). I'm sure it will be ungodly awful, but as usual I'm highly intrigued. Could be a trip.
BALLET SHOES (C) - can't imagine having any use for this chick flick (note: I'm all for chick flicks, but once in a while they're so exclusively designed for women, much like certain extreme macho movies, that there's no use in us men even bothering), except to satiate my curiosity for Emma Watson's acting abilities beyond "Harry Potter". Plus she's cute, so that'll probably keep me remotely interested - sorry.
AS FOR SEPTEMBER....
BANGKOK DANGEROUS (B-) - My GOD, what is it with Nicolas Cage these days? With each movie he seems more and more removed from his former status as big movie star, more burrowed into this alternate-universe version of himself as an unknowable cipher in utterly irrelevant, forgettable and most likely wretched yet momentarily passable movies that somehow garner theatrical releases and often turn a profit but have virtually no context in modern cinema whatsoever. What the fuck is "Bangkok Dangerous"? Most actors have an easily traceable career path - even when they switch gears, you can see it coming, or understand why. But Cage is a true oddity. As much as I still like him (for being so fascinatingly weird in such a plain way, and because he's made a lot of quality films), he boggles the shit out of me. Which is why I'll see this movie eventually; 'cuz everything else about it puts me to sleep: hitmen, action, the Pang Brothers, an empty supporting cast, Cage's obsolete mane (Tom Hanks couldn't make it worth either, Nic). There's no way this can be good. But more importantly, will it make any sense in our universe, or contribute to my sincere conspiracy theory that Hollywood replaced Nicolas Cage with a believable A.I. clone, and we're witnessing the very first, quite disturbing example of real-life uncanny valley syndrome?
EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE ITALIAN (D+) - mmmm, these kinds of comedies tend to be irritating, and the cast looks 3rd-rate. We'll wait and see if any good buzz accumulates, and assume the worst in the meantime.
THE WOMEN (D) - the ladies deserve their own ultra-feminist movie, sure, but if the toxic trailers are apt, this is not going to do anyone justice. Not only do the actresses all look unnecessarily processed beyond recognition (Annette Bening was drop-dead gorgeous not too long ago), but their antics are odiously unfunny and unpleasant. Somehow, with the combined bad luck of the women involved (primarily Meg Ryan, also the stalled and/or less-than-respectable career paths of Bening, ubiquitous yet rarely celebrated Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett, Carrie Fisher, et al), it's difficult to imagine this ending up as anything greater than a high-profile miscalculated dud on everyone's filmographies. Otherwise, I mean, where are the more in-demand, interesting, and successful actresses? You'd think a project this supposedly iconic would attract lots more (better?) female talent, no offense to Bening or Ryan, who've contributed plenty to cinema already (albeit nothing this century, really).
BURN AFTER READING (B) - you know what movie I want to anticipate the most this fall? The Coen Bros.' next. Who cares what it's about, they just reached a giant career apex last year. And look, not only do we have returning faves George Clooney, Frances McDormand, and Richard Jenkins, but other expertly chosen stars with plenty of quirk and actorly giddiness to suit any Coens material (Brad Pitt, Malkovich, Tilda Swinton). Plus it's a comedy! Oh wait, a comedy? By the Coens? Shit. And the trailer is mostly a bunch of hilarious reaction shots from A-list players? Oooh boy. Don't get me wrong, I've liked all of their films so far (although I've been having serious second thoughts about "The Ladykillers" ever since), and I think "Intolerable Cruelty", for one (and which seems like the closest resemblance to this new movie), was very underrated. BUT as sensational as their comedies can be in parts, or by design or via performance, they never have knocked one out of the park in that genre, if you ask me. They almost always settle for somewhere in the "pretty good" range. I'd like to believe that "Burn After Reading" could be outstanding in some way, but that trailer looks awfully familiar, and as easily as I could enjoy a film of nothing but big actors goofing off, I'm worried that with unavoidable expectations ("No Country for Old Men"! Clooney and Pitt!) will make it harder to appreciate if it ultimately isn't anything more than another vacantly stylish slapstick homage (i.e. "Hudsucker Proxy", "Intolerable Cruelty", "Ladykillers", "O Brother Where Art Thou").
THE FAMILY THAT PREYS (F) - Tyler Perry.
TOWELHEAD (B-) - could be good, even great, or at least provoke a strong reaction, but I'm not bowled over yet.
RIGHTEOUS KILL (C-) - "Runaway Jury 2" - maybe not in plot, but in its wasteful combination of two movie legends for a wimpy exercise everyone is bound to forget before they even see it. I mean, Jon Avnett? Really? I know they're great actors and all, but when I think back, it occurs to me that De Niro and Pacino were always served by equally strong directors. Without that true voice behind the camera, they tend to flounder aimlessly. So okay, let's try to accept a middling hack doing justice to these titans. As long as the story sounds compelling and their characters dynamic, what else do you really need? Let's check out that plot description courtesy of IMDB: "Two veteran NYC detectives work to identify the possible connection between a recent murder and a case they believed they solved years ago; is there a serial killer on the loose, and did they perhaps put the wrong person behind bars?" ............okay, enough said. Hopefully third time's the charm someday, guys.
LAKEVIEW TERRACE (F) - either I'm missing something here, or this looks like the lamest movie of all time. So reductive for all involved, it barely passes for a TV-movie as plots go. How far Neil LaBute has fallen...and I know we all joke that Samuel L. Jackson will act in anything, but wow. It looks everyone somehow agreed to make the movie, but didn't actually care one bit about what they were doing. I can't readily think of something this pointless. Besides, we already have "Unlawful Entry" from 16 years ago.
THE DUCHESS (C+) - like everyone else, I can't think of much more to say about this beyond the novelty of Keira Knightley doing yet another costumed period drama. Everyone has their niche, and she's pretty good at this. I'm finding out little by little that I have a soft spot for these types of flicks, although I probably prefer it when they're comedies of manners. Still, it'll probably turn out reasonably well.
BLINDNESS (C+) - "Everyone goes blind except Julianne Moore." Interesting! But also veering on campy and dumb. I can't help but be reminded of Moore's "The Forgotten", a truly horrible pseudo-sci-fi piece of shit powerfully summarized by its own title, even though I should be thinking more positively of "Children of Men" instead. Oh well, I like the part where Mark Ruffalo and Gael Garcia Bernal co-star.
APPALOOSA (B) - Standard plot doesn't hold much interest, but Ed Harris directs and stars and it's a western, and probably a leisurely paced, ruminative one at that, which have been good lately. I can forgive its somewhat overrated co-stars Viggo Mortensen and Renee Zellweger because there's also Lance Henriksen and Jeremy Irons. Could be solid.
MY BEST FRIEND'S GIRL (D) - Howard Deutch! I know everything he made after the '80s demonstrates what a deutch bag he is, but his first 3 films were "Pretty in Pink", "Some Kind of Wonderful", and "The Great Outdoors", so he's still got a certain wayward credit with me. That useless bit of trivia aside, this sounds about as generic as rom-coms ever get. It also sounds exactly like star Dane Cook's last movie, whatever it was called with Jessica Alba that, predictably, no one liked or probably even watched. Also: Dane Cook is in this. With Kate Hudson and Jason Biggs. I don't want to call those two the kiss of death, considering they have "Almost Famous" and "American Pie", but these days corraling 3 actors like these for a movie is like pleading to have your ass handed to you.
IGOR (A-) - now here's one I hope doesn't get lost in the shuffle! I'm overreaching given my love of horror comedy, and I haven't even seen the trailer yet, but I got high hopes for this baby. If I don't know any better, I'd swear I read this as a young adult novel back when I was a lad and still have fond memories. John Cusack's a curious choice for the titular voice, but I can see him making it work. The rest of the cast is half inspired, half annoying, but the movie is a lighthearted cartoon about monsters: this is all I ask for out of life most of the time.
GHOST TOWN (C+) - there really aren't enough supernatural comedies anymore. Movies about ghosts pestering the living used to be fairly common, I think, and I was happy then. Sad then, that this one is so dubious. Seems destined for failure - is it too out-of-time, or is the plot just plain lame? Ricky Gervais hasn't transitioned well to the big screen yet, in my opinion, although to be fair this will be his first starring role so we'll see (I'm just worried his exact "Office" schtick will follow him everywhere). Greg Kinnear could have fun in any role, and I'm pleased to see him regardless, but yeah, he deserves better. And director David Koepp may not be a real auteur, but he does have talent (as a writer), so this might not necessarily be as bland as expected.
MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA (C) - Spike Lee's foray into war drama looks tedious to me, although if I hear it's good, and even if I don't, he's enough of a presence in American cinema for me to check it out regardless. I just hope I'm not too bored. Sorry, but no matter who offers the latest war film, I always drag my feet to it, even when they turn out wonderfully ("Letters from Iwo Jima" being the most recent example, if I recall).
CHOKE (B+) - Sam Rockwell in a Chuck Palahniuk adaptation? Sign me up, bitches! With Anjelica Huston in tow, and looking like they're not sparing any of the kookiness, there's reason to be excited.
EAGLE EYE (C-) - sorry, I liked "Disturbia" just as much as everyone else (while still wondering why, all things considered), but this follow-up teaming of Shia LaBeouf and hired gun D.J. Caruso looks far less promising than that movie did beforehand. Which means it might still be a decent genre flick, but the trailer is mighty annoying. Also, given the straightfaced thriller angle, I'm saddened by the use of good actors like Billy Bob Thornton, Rosario Dawson, Michael Chiklis, William Sadler, Ethan Embry, and even Shia himself. No doubt they'll just go through the motions. Could be slickly entertaining like "Disturbia", but the set-up is outlandish, and not in a good way.
NIGHTS IN RODANTHE (B) - I said the same thing about Diane Lane's disappointingly maudlin "Under the Tuscan Sun", but this could be relaxing romantic escapism. I can't help like Richard Gere and Lane at this point, and wish them both the best in all endeavors. I'd like to watch a warm romance between them. Something mature, sincere, well-acted, sweet, probably scenic. Don't let me down, movie! Nicholas Sparks can be overwrought (I remember liking "The Notebook", but ever since then its premature status as a classic romance of our times has bugged me to no end) but also effective, I suppose. And James Franco helps out, with Scott Glenn and Chris Meloni. Good stuff.
THE LUCKY ONES (C+) - not sure what to make of this - as has been plenty documented already, movies about the Iraq war have sucked lately one way or another. The idea here - three soldiers on a road trip - has some promise but then comes off as awkward when you see that they're played by Rachel McAdams, Tim Robbins, and Michael Pena, three actors with varying amounts of talent, yet who neither sound fitting together nor particularly appropriate for this material. So I'm worried. But some aspect of it sounds like a possible "Best Years of Our Lives" for the 2000s, not that it could ever live up to that, but it's a good place for any movie to start.
AND LO COMES OCTOBER....
BEVERLY HILLS CHIHUAHUA (F) - come ON! This is the kind of idiotic nuisance of a movie that movie parodies parody. Does America still carry a torch for the Taco Bell dog? No we don't. None of us do. We hate him. We're glad his saga is over. It was faintly cute for a little while that he was a commercial mascot, but we got tired of him and his now-sickening catch phrase, and are hoping that he died years ago. Besides which, chihuahuas are the Fran Dreschers of the canine species. Or, I dunno, someone more modern, like Paris Hilton. Yeah, that's it. The sad truth is, I foresee this movie being a hit, and loved by many (the masses, that is, not anyone I actually willfully speak to on a regular basis), much like the "____ Movie" spoofs. Meanwhile I will just shake my head in sorrow and disgust. If you're reading this: please don't be one of those people. The world has so much more to offer. Even stuff that sucks would be better than this. Only bright spot: Gina Gallego supplies a minor voice role. Not that it matters since I won't even seen her face in the movie, but it's nice to see she still gets work. She was a big crush of mine in childhood from the little-seen 1987 monster sex comedy "My Demon Lover", where she rolled in the hay with Scott Valentine and introduced me to various tingly feelings inside. TMI, I know. But I had the hots for her, and who knows, maybe in some way she inspired my later predilection for Hispanic ladies? Who needs other ethnicities when there are such delectable latinas out there? Okay, sorry, I digress.
THE EXPRESS (C-) - not only am I STILL exhausted, many years on, by the proliferation of inspirational true-story sports movies, not to mention inspirational racial adversity dramas, but isn't this Dennis Quaid's 50th foray into sports cinema? Give us something out of the ordinary, something fresh, movie! Eh, it might still be good, but I'm gonna have to be convinced by glowing reviews before wasting my time. The second-billing (pretty high for him) of underrated character actor Clancy Brown (Sgt. Zim!!!!) is one glimmer of hope, however...
HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS & ALIENATE PEOPLE (B-) - another one I've heard a lot about so far, but remain in the dark about. Not familiar with the memoir it's based on, haven't watched trailers yet, not sure what the buzz is about. If it's a genuinely funny or well-written comedy, then we're all winners. I have more faith in Simon Pegg than Ricky Gervais, and Jeff Bridges is always great to have onboard.
NICK & NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST (B+) - might not end up being as special as it's purporting (or as others are touting), but with two enticing, talented leads (Michael Cera, Kat Dennings), a giddy night-in-the-life-of... story structure (almost every movie I can think of that's used that premise has been memorable in some way), and both the titular and soundtrack promise of music obsession, I already have a spot reserved on my annual top 10 for this.
RELIGULOUS (B-) - the truth is, while I often want to punch Bill Maher in the face, and could scarcely tolerate his nightly talk show, the man has a lot of bold, compelling ideas, many of which I happen to agree with, even if the other ones piss me the fuck off. He's a fascinating commentator, so this should be worth a look, if not more, although the subject matter itself leaves something to be desired (what's the point in arguing religion? It's a dead-end street).
WHAT JUST HAPPENED? (B-) - "Wag the Dog" was far from perfect, but this one sounds less precious already. Insider Hollywood flicks are usually fun in their own ways, yet tend to still be self-aggrandizing, so it's a tricky balance. I'm not a fan of De Niro's shift into comedy, but if he keeps it wry enough, he can make it work. In a drastically hit-or-miss career, Barry Levinson has been nothing but miss for a long time, so there's automatic uncertainty there. But how bad could it be?...
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED (B-) - I want Anne Hathaway to succeed, so I'll keep fingers crossed that this small Jonathan Demme drama is a critical hit.
CITY OF EMBER (B) - don't know enough yet to render a proper verdict, but I guess it's one of the fall's biggest releases. SOUNDS intriguing, at least, as a dark fantasy, and Gil Kenan has my trust after "Monster House", but I'm continually distracted by the presence of Bill Murray here as...the villain? I don't know if I can get over that, but I'm anxious to see what it's like.
QUARANTINE (C-) - eh, I'm not convinced.
ROCKnROLLA (C) - why do they keep letting Guy Ritchie make movies? 99% of the world has hated "Swept Away" and "Revolver", and this looks like more of the same gangster posturing. Can't deny my curiosity, what with the cast and Ritchie's stylish techniques, but it could easily be one giant headache, and sounds too much like last year's "Smokin' Aces", itself a Ritchie ripoff.
SEX DRIVE (B) - another coming-of-age teen sex romp, this one has my attention more than "College", perhaps because of the plot (road trip to hook up with chicks - lots of room for poignancy and teen antics alike there), perhaps because my hero Seth Green has a small part, perhaps because I'm simply desperate for another good teen movie.
BODY OF LIES (C+) - Ridley Scott movies rarely seem appealing from the outset these days, but just as rarely turn out badly in the end, so no need to panic here. The trailer is forgettable, Russell Crowe's self-satisfaction and Leo's blistering intensity both a tad too familiar, but still, it's Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and Leonardo DiCaprio. These guys may not be perfect, but they rarely phone it in. There's something to look forward to here, whatever it is.
FLASH OF GENIUS (B-) - rather small-potatoes film, but it's Greg Kinnear in indie mode, so thumbs up for now
MAX PAYNE (D-) - another ultra-stylish video game shoot-'em-up? More "Matrix"y wankery? More Mark Wahlberg as a stoic hero? Pass.
W. (F) - likely to be one of the most controversial and confounding movies of recent times. Even before it started sounding like a comedy, and an amateur-level one at that, the notion of telling our president's life story on the big screen in 2008 sounded like a gamble that couldn't possibly pay off. And it won't. I haven't watched the trailer per se, but everything I've read and the pictures I've seen indicate that this is just an embarrassingly simplistic, one-note joke at Dubya's expense, whether Oliver Stone himself acknowledges that or not. It looks like a fucking cartoon. Not to defend Bush - he's an irresponsible clown, of course - but is this movie necessary? If it is indeed a "comedy", and portrays his life as broadly as it seems to, what's the point? Talk about shooting fish in a barrel, patting yourself on the back for preaching to the converted. Leave this work to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, you moron. If he really wanted to tell a complex story about Bush, rather than just villify and exploit him while pretending it's an artful drama, I'd be game. Not that I can imagine there's much room to provide a balanced commentary on someone so pathetic, but such an approach would be infinitely more interesting than this disaster-in-the-making.
Whew, that took a while! I'll finish up later (sure, sure - no really!)
|
|