Certainly this movie has lowered the bar on what is acceptable in an R-rated film when it comes to sex, dialogue, and gross out humor. It's amazing how far standards for decency can fall in a person's lifetime. When I was born, 1986, the most crass mainstream movie was probably National Lampoon's Animal House. You see that today and it looks incredibly tame. When movie history recognizes Kevin Smith, the writer/director of this film, it will surely be not about his talent as a director (mediocre at best), maybe as a writer (he's has had as many flops as well done stories), but as a main player in the critically acclaimed debasement of modern entertainment. In other words, he proved that good films could accompany complete and utter raunch. How about a history lesson:
On the same year, 1994, that Tarantino's bleep prone masterpiece 'Pulp Fiction' came out, Kevin Smith made 'Clerks.' Both represented a divergence from the past. They were made dirt cheap. Clerks was made for $27,000. The black and white is not a style choice. Smith couldn't afford color. And they reveled in extreme verbal profanity. Defending the obscenity Smith and Tarantino merely said 'this is how real people talk.' People seemed to agree, both films have been widely seen. The MPAA didn't like it though and actually initially gave 'Clerks' a NC-17 rating based solely on dialogue. 'Clerks' is the only film in the history of films to get such a rating in a movie that had no sex or violence. (What a great anecdote for cocktail parties, your welcome). The MPAA relented and what has followed for the past decade and a half should definitely make them pause and wonder if they made the right decision. In 1998 Cameron Diaz combed her hair with Ben Stiller's jizz in the Farrelly brother's "There's Something about Mary." In 1999, Jason Biggs screwed a pastry in "American Pie." Then brand Apatow surfaced and all hell broke loose. Now what was an automatic NC-17 rating, full frontal male nudity, has suddenly become okay, the best example being Jason Segal's member in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." The camera is even following women into the bathroom in Oscar contenders like Juno. It makes one wonder exactly how far the envelope can be pushed, and if it should be pushed that far. (I complained about the aggressive dialogue in "Knocked Up") The answer I think: Just as long as the comedy is funny, the drama is dramatic, and it's presence isn't incredibly distracting.
As I said "Zach and Miri make a Porno," lowers the bar and I'm not even talking about the sex (Which I'm pretty sure is not simulated). I'm talking about a porn star's constipation. (No, I won't tell you what exactly happens. I run a clean blog for the most part.) Suffice to say I hope I never see a film lower the bar from this one. I shudder to think how anyone will try to do it. Now I've seen it all.
But other than that one scene, I liked "Zach and Miri Make a Porno." It was a great idea to team up Seth Rogan's delivery with Kevin Smith's writing. Rogan plays the exact same character you've seen him play in all his movies. It's a good character and consistently funny but I wonder how far he can stretch that guy before he starts making some really bad films. (See Adam Sandler) There's a strong supporting cast here including Smith stalwarts like Jason Mewes and Jeff Anderson. There are two real porn stars, Katie Morgan and Traci Lords. (Katie Morgan is not a terrible actress by the way.) Justin Long provides a small bit as a gay porn actor that in any other hands would simply be a cameo. Kevin Smith makes a funny cameo to as a drunk Steelers fan who walks into the coffee shop and doesn't seem to notice people are making a porno. The best though is Craig Robinson, best known for 'The Office.' My favorite thing about Craig is the way he delivers his lines in sighs, mumbles, and asides. As far as black comedians go I've never seen anything quite like it. Insert a Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, or Robert Downey Jr. into this role and it simply wouldn't work as well. Robinson is a true original. This is his first substantial role in a movie. He should get more. The only person who seemed out of place is Elizabeth Banks. She's just too damn pretty and because of that the self-deprecating humor doesn't seem to ring true. I think her part could have been filled with someone who looked more equitable with Seth Rogan. Or maybe that's just Jiminy Cricket telling me I shouldn't like this movie.
Do you know what the weird thing is. I felt more uncomfortable when real drama surfaced in the story. The movie is actually a love story between two people who have known each other all their lives but have never consummated the relationship. When Jason Mewes interrupted with really disgusting things to say, I felt safer. Maybe that says something about me, I don't know. The attempt to establish romance into a movie about making a porno to pay the bills just didn't come off entirely right. Is it realistic? The scary thing is that it just became a heck of a lot more so since the economy cratered. Funny right.
Showing posts with label kevin smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kevin smith. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Live Free or Die Hard July 10, 2007
Wow, how far the die hard movies have come. This last installment, the 3rd sequel of the 1988 classic is the silliest and indeed the stupidest. So grab a beer, a warm couch, and a group of friends, this is a Couch Potato Thriller: One you'd want to talk through and joke with and not, I repeat, not pay attention to what implausibility is actually happening.
John McClane, the Bruce Willis charachter, is back this time to take down a group of virtual terrorists that have hijacked the entire nation and brought down it's complete infrastructure with a something something complete bullshit code. I'm no computer geek but I'm pretty confident that anyone who is an expert on computers knows that this scenario is impossible. The movie's creators, I think, are counting on the audience to be as ignorant as John McClane and to sympathize when he constantly asks the supergeeks (Justin Long and Kevin Smith) what they're talking about. This whole scenario brings about a cliche that happens all to often in sequels.
I call it the insurmountable enemy. I first noticed it in the Matrix sequels, when I realized halfway throughout the film that the enemy had been made so powerful, so resourceful, so incredibly gargantuan that any defeating of it would be implausible, silly, or just plain stupid. This happens here when apparently a couple of computer geeks can be so smart as to inflict an untold amount of damage, kill untold amounts of people, and yet be stupid enough to lose to one guy.
Now this one guy happens to be Bruce Willis. And Bruce Willis is a badass, true. But may I remind you that in the first Die Hard, Bruce Willis was not a badass. He was a human, and when he crossed a ground full of broken glass, he suffered, he bled. This Bruce Willis is a cartoon characther. He can jump out a speeding car going 100 mph and not break a single bone. He can fall out of two story window and only suffer so much as to grunt a little.
The bad guys too are just as implausibly limber. This one girl gets hit by a car at top speed and is plummeted through several walls and finally is crushed between the car and an elevator shaft. Is she hurt? Is she even stunned? No, she apparently has an adamantium skeleton like Wolverine. The fight doesn't even end there. She stil has enough going to fire off a couple shots.
And this brings up another recent movie cliche. The implausibly tough girl. This asian chick, Maggie Q, is at most 110 pounds. In any reality she wouldn't be able to bench over 50. But still, because she knows kung fu, she can kick ass and forcefully at that. Is any woman in any action movie nowadays not capable of easily beating up men twice their size?
The insurmountable enemy becomes laughable near the end when the bad guy deliberately forfeits any chance of winning by simply killing McClane, Long, or the daughter when he has the chance. Even though they have the ability to easily shut down the country, they apparently cannot break an encryption code by Long, therefore they need to keep him alive. But what does it matter anyway? You know the ending anyway, there's no suspense. We watch just to see what crazy implausible shit the creators will come up with next. This would be fine, of course, if the creators played the entire movie tongue and cheek. I just hate it when they want us to take the movie seriously by entering these scenes where the characters talk seriously as if they're in a serious movie. In one such scene we learn that McClane is divorced and his family hates him. Boooo! I happen to like McClane and I hate it in sequels when they take these characters we love and bash them to bits because they need some drama in their empty screenplay. As far as I'm concerned, the third and fourth installments of this series don’t exist and McClane went off in the sunset with his wife in the second film.
I'm not even done yet. Now I will talk about action in a movie and what makes it work, and what makes it not work. The best action is done in a long shot so the audience can actually see what's happening. This movie doesn't do that. We see a bunch of people shooting guns and alot of extreme closeups. Even when they are just talking: Still extreme closeup. When you're doing something physical you need more than just a face. Where's the scene! I can't see anything actually happening! action movies nowadays should move towards what Jackie Chan was doing. Actual choreography with long shots so we can see the strategy involved. A bunch of guns going off and people ducking behind embankments isn't good enough for me anymore. I want actual action. Not this pretend shit. I swear I don’t remember the last time a machine gun in a movie actually hit anything. Why do the characters even bother pulling those triggers? There are obviously no real bullets in the gun. A well choreagraphed fistfight is more exciting. Gunfights equals Boorriiinnng!
I will end this by saying this missed a fine oppurtunity for Justin Long to do some fine physical comedy, which he is definitely good at (see Dodgeball). This is one actor who should not be typecast as a nerd who sits around all day typing on his computer.
John McClane, the Bruce Willis charachter, is back this time to take down a group of virtual terrorists that have hijacked the entire nation and brought down it's complete infrastructure with a something something complete bullshit code. I'm no computer geek but I'm pretty confident that anyone who is an expert on computers knows that this scenario is impossible. The movie's creators, I think, are counting on the audience to be as ignorant as John McClane and to sympathize when he constantly asks the supergeeks (Justin Long and Kevin Smith) what they're talking about. This whole scenario brings about a cliche that happens all to often in sequels.
I call it the insurmountable enemy. I first noticed it in the Matrix sequels, when I realized halfway throughout the film that the enemy had been made so powerful, so resourceful, so incredibly gargantuan that any defeating of it would be implausible, silly, or just plain stupid. This happens here when apparently a couple of computer geeks can be so smart as to inflict an untold amount of damage, kill untold amounts of people, and yet be stupid enough to lose to one guy.
Now this one guy happens to be Bruce Willis. And Bruce Willis is a badass, true. But may I remind you that in the first Die Hard, Bruce Willis was not a badass. He was a human, and when he crossed a ground full of broken glass, he suffered, he bled. This Bruce Willis is a cartoon characther. He can jump out a speeding car going 100 mph and not break a single bone. He can fall out of two story window and only suffer so much as to grunt a little.
The bad guys too are just as implausibly limber. This one girl gets hit by a car at top speed and is plummeted through several walls and finally is crushed between the car and an elevator shaft. Is she hurt? Is she even stunned? No, she apparently has an adamantium skeleton like Wolverine. The fight doesn't even end there. She stil has enough going to fire off a couple shots.
And this brings up another recent movie cliche. The implausibly tough girl. This asian chick, Maggie Q, is at most 110 pounds. In any reality she wouldn't be able to bench over 50. But still, because she knows kung fu, she can kick ass and forcefully at that. Is any woman in any action movie nowadays not capable of easily beating up men twice their size?
The insurmountable enemy becomes laughable near the end when the bad guy deliberately forfeits any chance of winning by simply killing McClane, Long, or the daughter when he has the chance. Even though they have the ability to easily shut down the country, they apparently cannot break an encryption code by Long, therefore they need to keep him alive. But what does it matter anyway? You know the ending anyway, there's no suspense. We watch just to see what crazy implausible shit the creators will come up with next. This would be fine, of course, if the creators played the entire movie tongue and cheek. I just hate it when they want us to take the movie seriously by entering these scenes where the characters talk seriously as if they're in a serious movie. In one such scene we learn that McClane is divorced and his family hates him. Boooo! I happen to like McClane and I hate it in sequels when they take these characters we love and bash them to bits because they need some drama in their empty screenplay. As far as I'm concerned, the third and fourth installments of this series don’t exist and McClane went off in the sunset with his wife in the second film.
I'm not even done yet. Now I will talk about action in a movie and what makes it work, and what makes it not work. The best action is done in a long shot so the audience can actually see what's happening. This movie doesn't do that. We see a bunch of people shooting guns and alot of extreme closeups. Even when they are just talking: Still extreme closeup. When you're doing something physical you need more than just a face. Where's the scene! I can't see anything actually happening! action movies nowadays should move towards what Jackie Chan was doing. Actual choreography with long shots so we can see the strategy involved. A bunch of guns going off and people ducking behind embankments isn't good enough for me anymore. I want actual action. Not this pretend shit. I swear I don’t remember the last time a machine gun in a movie actually hit anything. Why do the characters even bother pulling those triggers? There are obviously no real bullets in the gun. A well choreagraphed fistfight is more exciting. Gunfights equals Boorriiinnng!
I will end this by saying this missed a fine oppurtunity for Justin Long to do some fine physical comedy, which he is definitely good at (see Dodgeball). This is one actor who should not be typecast as a nerd who sits around all day typing on his computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)