The Songs of Johnny Go

While I steadfastly avoided the reviews for Green Lantern which popped up today on the sites I usually go to (and the fact that they're not releasing reviews until the day before release is a bad sign of WB/DC's own confidence in their overly-promoted would-be blockbuster), just seeing the dire headlines was enough to confirm the worst: this film was going to be the disaster we always thought it would be. Or worse, it would be a tedious slog with horrible CGI, an inglorious mess which isn't even fun as a train wreck.

The reality is, it wasn't that bad. Oh, it wasn't great either, but it's far from a terrible movie. It's just an incredibly flawed movie with great stuff that are threatened to be overshadowed by stupid and boring stuff. It has FOUR story credits, and it sure feels like four half-baked films with great premises, great moments, great potential, all of which go nowhere.

For instance, take Hector Hammond, the giant-headed sub-villain of the film. He's given decidedly more humanity, tragedy, and backstory than the character in comics ever had, but so much of that comes through the actor's performance and scant hints from the screenplay which, at times, seem to come out of nowhere, and subseqquently go nowhere. Hector's subplot, which had a lot of great elements, ultimately didn't serve the movie one bit, and just added to the bloat.

This is going to sound worse than I mean it, but in terms of that bloat, I was comparing Green Lantern to the third Pirates movie, while Henchgirl compared it to X-Men 3. Now, I liked GL waayyyyyy more than either of those films, especially fucking Pirates 3, but GL similarly suffers from filmmakers wanting to cram way too much into one little film, introducing one great element only to abandon it for another, and so on.

For example: Tomar-Re was WONDERFUL. Geoffery Rush and the CGI team combined to make a delightful character and break ol' fish-beak to life. He showed up, had great lines, delivered exposition, then vanished. What was the point of having him there in the first place? Then Sinestro shows up to beat up Hal, which serves as both a prelude for their friendship in the short term and their OTP of Hatred in the long term. But before any of that can be established, he too is gone. Mark Strong's Sinestro was great and nuanced, but he too was given far too little to do, and he shared far too little screentime with Hal to make it matter. Henchgirl says that Sinestro could have had Tomar-Re's whole role, and she's absolutely right. Just one of many examples of this film trying to spread itself too thin with the mythos.

I don't know what this film should have been. Maybe it should have been grounded entirely on Earth, with Hal Jordan's life being intruded upon by sci-fi elements with a few hints of the grander cosmic opera into which he's found himself intertwined. Maybe they should have thrust Hal directly to Oa and the Corps, dropping the cocky human right into the Space Opera amidst all the aliens ala Farscape. Maybe they should have ditched Green Lantern: Secret Origin (the lackluster Geoff Johns take on Hal's origin which DC is pushing as the be-all end-all BIBLE of Hal Jordan) and instead gone for Green Lantern: Emerald Dawn, the greatest GL origin which has been forgotten because people still hate that Hal was a drunk driver in that story. I defy people to look down on that now, since the Hal Jordan of the film is a complete and utter ASSHOLE. Not even a redeemable asshole like Tony Stark, just an asshole. As a longtime Hal Jordan fan, it pisses me off that many people will see that as a faithful take on the character.

The film wasn't terrible. I mean, it was a mess, and it was often boring, but it was also often delightful, fun, funny, thrilling, and soaring (Hal's first flight was a genuine bit of movie magic). We saw this in 2D, but we now want to watch it in 3D. I actually want to pay money to see this film in 3D. That should count for something. God knows how much watching it on the small screen will hurt the effects and bring out the flaws.

In terms of enjoyment quality, I put this film on the level of the first X-Men and Spider-Man films. Which is to say, they're flawed messes with cheese, stupidity, and tedium duking it out with the great stuff, which itself sets the stage for a potentially GREAT sequel. Here's hoping that happens, assuming that this doesn't flop. Granted, Transformers was a ridiculously stupid and critically-panned movie that was still a hit, but I fear that GL might be slightly too smart even in its stupidity to appeal to your average stupid movie-viewer. And if it flops, god knows what that'll mean for DC, who seems to have everything riding on this one damn movie.

There's a lot more I could say, but for now, this is the only review I've yet read which pretty much nails my thoughts (but it comes with a SPOILER tag, so be warned). For those who've seen it, let's discuss it in the comments.

I've been waiting for a Green Lantern movie with Hal Jordan and the Corps since I was thirteen years old. I feel like I'm still waiting.

The Coen Brothers' True Grit adaptation was a fine film, but I don't see what was so different from the original John Wayne film that justified the remake.

I suppose the best reason is that the new actress is superior (and the appropriate age for the character), but honestly, the original actress stopped being terrible once she started interacting with John Wayne. He's a character and actor who are both so great dynamic that he/they immediately force the other actors to step up their game. That said, I'm also torn between which Rooster Cogburn I preferred. Bridges is brilliant, but Wayne's was--Henchgirl and I decided--rather more cuddly in his gruff badassedness, which worked for the character.

Throughout the film, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching a rerun. It doesn't help that I'd seen the original recently, but that also made me more acutely aware of how similar--and thus, unnecessary--this celebrated remake seemed. But that's hardly a criticism that'll apply to everyone. Many (most?) people haven't seen the original, a possibility which almost always saddens me, even with the best remakes. I myself would probably not have seen it if the remake hadn't been coming out, so I guess I'm not one to talk, but it bugs me nonetheless.

Any further discussion about the film will go into SPOILERS territory, so I'll save that for the comments if anybody has thoughts of their own to share. If you've seen the remake, have you seen the original? If not, would you consider it? If you've seen the original and the remake, how do you think they compare?

Again, be warned: I plan to go full-on SPOILERS GALORE in the comments.

First, Aaron Eckhart is "heartbroken" to learn that Nolan is definite on Harvey Dent being dead, and thus will not be in Dark Knight Rises. It's worth actually reading Eckhart's story of how he learned the news. I predict it'll launch a number of slash-fics.

For my part, I'm glad to hear it now than to hold out hope that maybe, maybe there'd be a surprise cameo in Arkham or in the twist ending or after the credits or in a deleted scene or maybe hell maybe in the fourth film yeah yeah maybe who knows *cries*. So, good to be spared that cycle.

Still, it's certainly put a crimp in my entire day. This is why I haven't actively thought about TDK for months. It just puts me in a frustrated, thinky mood for hours, going on with what I liked and what I wish wish wish they had done differently.



In related news box_in_the_box posted the following, dubbing it the "Best Batman Theme EVER." It's a combination of the themes by Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, and Shirley Walker:





Oh my god. Okay, very mixed feelings here.

Whenever the theme went to Zimmer, I. Was. So. Bored. At least, I'm guessing the boring parts were Zimmer, because they were the parts that were neither Walker nor Elfman. Now, I didn't like Zimmer's theme in BB until I heard it used in the trailer for The Dark Knight, at which point I was like, "Okay, this is actually pretty badass, I like it now."

Here, it was swalled up by Elfman and Walker. Maybe it's just that the composer didn't effectively recreate the literally thirty seconds of good music from Zimmer's entire BB score, by which I mean the first thirty of this:



Those blaring horns and slamming beats are the only part that could have stood up to Elfman and Walker, and while it actually took me a couple listens to discover that the composer actually had included that part, he didn't successfully recreate the "grab you by the balls and PAY ATTENTION" urgency. I think that speaks more to Zimmer's production than composition skills, because without that factor, it really is a boring track.

Actually, I'm listening to that above Zimmer piece on its own, and I'm rather loving it. The best thing Zimmer can do with the soundtracks is give them a sense of urgency. But even this is two-dimensional compared to the sheer scope of Elfman and Walker's soundtracks.

And yet... maybe it's because of that that I actually felt gut-punched both times Shirley Walker's theme came in, and elevated the entire piece to greatness for those few seconds. Maybe it's sympathetic pregnancy (and dear god, I've wanted to kill somebody for chocolate on more than one occasion, so it well could be), but I was actually moved to tears when the Walker theme came on the second time. Amazing how hearing that theme over and over again in the most formative show of one's childhood can have that effect.

There's something so much more hopeful about that theme to counter Elfman's glorious darkness. Both are soaring statements about who Batman is. Zimmer's is more just what Batman does: just pure action, action, action, without introspection.

All in all, this was a fascinating and fascinating piece, one that was even moving in a couple occasions. I want him to do a second version down the line. Maybe a series. Hell, I'd love to hear him combine all three Joker themes. Ohhhh fuck yeah, do I wanna hear that. Screeching Hans Zimmer white noise of horrifying madness:




... giving way to a magnificent Elfman waltz...




... giving way to that whistling, happy, mischevious Walker theme (cue to 4:15)...





... and back again with little to no warning. Ohhh man, I gotta write to this guy and make a request.

THE WOLFMAN was terribly disappointing, particularly because I feel like I could just see all the good intentions scattered somewhere inside the horribly-edited mess of a film. Could a different cut salvage it? I'd love to think so, but I doubt it. Sigh. In fairness, the original WOLFMAN wasn't that great either, what with the stalker-tastic love story which could have easily been called--as Henchgirl quipped--THE WEREWOLF WALKED ON TIPPY-TOES. But still! Sigh.

That said, I'm still not sure if crushing disappointment is better than intense horrified loathing. Which brings us to my thoughts on ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

There are few words to describe just how much I loathed Burton's film (which he made, as I understand, without having ever read the actual books), and if I had the time/energy, I would rant about it wholeheartedly instead of doing this kind of cheap, unsupported drive-by complaint. But really, when it comes to a film that makes the Mad Hatter a badass revolutionary, tries (and utterly fails) to combine the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen, and ends with a song by Avril Fucking Lavigne, what else do I really have to say? I mean, seriously.

That said, I want the soundtrack. The Hatter's dance music was the first time I've heard Danny Elfman write anything sounding like Oingo Boingo since even before Oingo Boingo broke up. Too bad it had to happen in the brain-meltingly-awful moment when the Hatter danced the Robot. I mean, seriously, do I really have to defend these points? Really? Whyyyyy???!?!

On the plus side, I now want to write my essay on why Batman's Mad Hatter, Jervis Tetch, is a woefully abused character who deserves more love.

Speaking of Bat-Rogues, I posted my first Two-Face Tuesday entry in two weeks, the first part of Harvey vs. the Robins, with a focus on the first appearance of Tim Drake. I'm kinda disappointed that it didn't get more attention at scans_daily, what with their adoration of the Robins and all, but hopefully that'll pick up with the next entry, focusing on Dick Grayson's ties to Harvey in PRODIGAL.

Edgar Wright eulogizes the great Edward Woodward. To be followed up with Simon Pegg's own remembrances. I love how Pegg also notes, just as I do, that THE WICKER MAN* is a quasi-musical.



MGK's alternate-history timeline fic, SCENES FROM AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE WHERE THE BEATLES ACCEPTED LORNE MICHAELS' GENEROUS OFFER, is magnificent. I look forward to actually reading this one aloud to Mom later.



Twenty-something critic from the AV Club watches GHOSTBUSTERS for the first time, does not like it. A generation explodes. The quote that inspired the greatest ire:

Here’s the thing about Ghostbusters, though—a thing that seems to come up a lot when revisiting beloved old favorites: It isn’t as good as you remember. And if it is as good as you remember, that’s because you’re viewing it with nostalgic blinders on. And while there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a movie for nostalgic reasons, keep that in mind next time you berate someone for not seeing that one movie you loved when you were 7 years old.

On one hand, she does kind of have a point. Every time I revisit the original STAR WARS trilogy (which I first saw at the ripe age of 5 or 6), I think, "Wow, if I didn't love these movies so much, I might not like them at all." On the other hand, GHOSTBUSTERS! *arm flail*



Magnificent fan art covers for INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS comics... as drawn by Jack Kirby.

The last one is my favorite.



Devin at CHUD.com on "The Tyranny of Realism" in film. I'm not sure how much I agree with him, but he raises some good questions. Choice quote:

Sometimes you want to just tell a story and as long story and the emotions behind it feel true, why does anything else matter? How does learning how Batman made his suit improve Batman?







*God, how sad is it that a whole generation knows THE WICKER MAN only as a misogynistic campfest where Nic Cage gets bees poured upon him?

Well now. I'd heard some people say that the new Seth Rogan film OBSERVE AND REPORT wasn't accurately marketed, but that's a massive understatement.

Good lord, that was an excellent but deeply unsettling movie.

It's not at all surprising that it's gotten such mixed reviews, but my favorite joyless bastard, Devin from CHUD.com gave it a rare 10 out of 10, saying, "This is classic smuggling: taking a buzzed about filmmaker and a very popular, mainstream star and teaming them up to make something uncompromising, strange, uncomfortable and dark."*

Devin adds, "OBSERVE AND REPORT is an amazing movie... for the right audience. I'm not dumb enough to think that this movie is for everyone; there will be people who simply won't understand why other folks are so desperately in love with it. There will be people who don't quite see why many of the jokes are funny (such as the ending - shocking, violent, sick and in my opinion one of the funniest things I've seen in a movie in years), and who wonder how anybody can stomach these characters. But if you're that special kind of viewer, the kind who likes to be challenged, who likes to go places sane people avoid, who thinks transgression isn't just desirable but also kind of hilarious, Observe and Report might be your favorite movie of the year."

He sums up my thoughts pretty well (although more pompously than I would, but that's Devin for you), but the major difference between how he saw and how I saw it was that I didn't find it that funny. I laughed maybe... five times. I wonder if I'd seen it with a full house of people who got it, as opposed to the matinee showing with six other people (man, this movie is gonna flop so hard), would I have laughed? Even cheered in places?

Because that's what the film wants. It wants you to root for this character, to cheer for him, like he's just another delusional loser usually played by Will Ferrell or Kevin James... and then, it pulls the rug out right from under you. Because Rogan's character isn't like Ron Burgundy or Paul Blart, a pumped-up jackass who has no actual abilities or talent to back up his arrogance.

Rogan's character has those. And he's a racist bipolar sociopath. Oh, and a date rapist too, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Several people keep bringing up comparisons to TAXI DRIVER (director Jody Hill reportedly considers Scorsese's THE KING OF COMEDY--which I have yet to see--as the bigger inspiration, but it's impossible to ignore the Bickleness of Ronnie), but at various points I was reminded of other proto-fascist characters in films like FALLING DOWN, DEATH WISH, STRAW DOGS, and especially EDMOND, based on the David Mamet play of the same name.

In fact, it was evocative of several modern plays, particularly the everyday sociopaths of Neil Labute, plus the dark comedy and shocking violence of Martin McDonough. If OBSERVE AND REPORT were on stage, it might be hailed as a modern masterpiece, with students at the Studio Theatre conservatory fighting to play Ronnie scenes for class.

I'm sick of seeing such stories dominating the modern stage, presumably in the name of being anti-Hollywood sensibilities. But as such, seeing it on the screen--pushed by a major studio into multiplexes--is damn well exhilarating, even though I'm sure many will reject it outright. Some will be pissed that it isn't a wacky farce or a big-hearted Apatow comedy, while others will avoid seeing it in the first place because that's exactly what the film's going to be. Not to mention those who'll boycott the film because they've heard that it makes light of date rape.

I'm not gonna really try to defend that scene, because it's impossible to do out of context. If there's a laugh to be had in that scene, it's only a laugh of nervous relief, and even that sounds horrible to say. Trust me, it's ALL about context, because this is not a character with whom we're ever asked to sympathize. Even if he fools other people into thinking that he's the hero he thinks he is, we the audience know better.

Because this film sees him for what he is, a power-tripping everyday fascist representative of too many real-life police officers (some might argue most or even all cops, by their nature), and the fact that he may or may not get his comeuppance--even being rewarded for his actions--raises many troubling questions. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE comes to mind ("I was cured all right."), as does AMERICAN PSYCHO, which raised the question of how much was reality and how much was a sick fantasy from a sick mind.

Many critics are struggling with that question, bringing up the jarring shifts in tone. From farce comedy one minute to brutal and disturbing darkness the next. From bumbling guy to superhuman fighting machine and back again. Non-white characters are looked down upon or are criminals. The sexually active girl is demonized, while the (born-again) virginal pure one is the "redemptive" girl.

Many people seem to want to write the film off as being partially or wholly a fantasy, whereas people like Devin believe that to do so would rob the movie of its punchline. But if it isn't all in Ronnie's head, then we're faced with the possibility that the film itself is as fascist as he is. I strongly doubt that's the case, but I do wonder and worry about what others might take away from this film.

Me, I need to see it again, and with other people with whom I can dissect the movie for an hour or two (and maybe with them, I might actually find it as laugh-out-loud funny as others have). Because this is not a forgettable little movie for the mall crowds, as it's marketed to be. It's film that stays with you and lends itself to lots, lots of discussion.

OBSERVE AND REPORT is very worthwhile movie, and essential viewing for anyone interested in challenging films. See it before it flops. Or worse, gets totally misunderstood and held up as a heroic masterpiece by scary people, just as TAXI DRIVER and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE were.




*Not for the first time, I'm reminded of THE CABLE GUY, which flopped just as I'm sure O&R will flop, but is now considered by many to be an excellent black comedy.

Via tragical_mirth:

WERNER HERZOG RETROSPECTIVE AT THE AFI!!!!!!!

Who wants to see AGUIRRE, WRATH OF GOD on the big screen with me tomorrow at 9:00? Having seen it at AFI a couple years ago, I can assure you, this film is somehow even better on the big screen.

Just before that, there'll also be FITZCARRALDO (a film I like, but it's like a less awesome version of AGUIRRE, and the behind-the-scenes story infinitely more interesting) and the amazing POW story LITTLE DIETER NEEDS TO FLY, which Herzog himself adapted as RESCUE DAWN with Christian Bale.

C'mon, folks! 9:00 for AGUIRRE, if nothing else! Let's get grog at Piratz Tavern, and then watch Herzog!

LET'S MAKE IT A HERZGROG NIGHT!

I have only the slightest ideas what the upcoming films THE EXPENDABLES and MY SON, MY SON, WHAT HAVE YE DONE? are about, but plot seems entirely besides the point. All that matters is this question: which film are you more pants-jizzingly excited to see based purely on the cast and talent behind it?

THE EXPENDABLES, written and directed by Sylvester Stallone, starring a ridiculously ripped Stallone*, Jason Statham, Forrest Whittaker, Sir Ben Kingsley, Mickey Rourke, Jet Li, and Dolph Lundgren (the last two of whom will be sharing a fight scene). With a possible cameo by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, playing himself, hopefully still kicking ass.

Or...

MY SON, MY SON, WHAT HAVE YE DONE? Directed by Werner Herzog, starring Willem Dafoe, Michael Shannon, Chloe Sevigny, Michael Pena, Brad Dourif, Bill Cobbs, Udo Kier and Grace Zabriskie. Oh, and it's being produced by David Lynch.

Don't make me chooooooooose, I already love you both!


*Mom refuses to believe that's not Photoshopped. But then again, she also refuses to believe that's Ricardo Montalban's real chest in STAR TREK II. Old people can't be ripped!

I tried thinking up a "Heffie's Top Ten Films of 2008!" list, until I realized that I couldn't come up with enough.

Not that it was a bad year, but when you consider that I haven't yet seen THE WRESTLER, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, MISTER LONELY, THE STRANGERS, REPRISE, STUCK, HAPPY GO LUCKY, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, THE FALL, IN BRUGES, MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS, REDBELT, MILK, SURFWISE, WENDY AND LUCY, MAN ON WIRE, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, 4 MONTHS 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS, PARANOID PARK, KUNG-FU PANDA, and SYNEDOCHE, NEW YORK... heck, it's no wonder I can't even crack a list of more than five.

And I'm not even counting THE DARK KNIGHT. That shit's disqualified as a special case.

Crimminy. Maybe I need to do a marathon of whatever's playing in town. Priority films are THE WRESTLER and SYNEDOCHE, NEW YORK, followed by RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, IN BRUGES, and MAN ON WIRE, but most I'll have to wait and Netflix when I get back (and others I've listed haven't even gotten wide release yet!)

Any must-see suggestions, folks?



Edit: here's more as I think of them--[REC], JCVD, TIMECRIMES, OPERATION FILMMAKER, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO, FROST/NIXON