The Uncritic

I used to have a saying, “There is no bad movie with Mark Wahlberg in it.” Determined to prove me wrong, Marky Mark immediately set out to make The Happening. That movie was apparently terrible, which is why I didn’t watch it. Mark didn’t give up though. He then starred in another movie which he knew I would have to watch. And that movie was Max Payne.

I had a weird feeling after seeing Max Payne. One I rarely have after seeing movies… anger. Yes, Max Payne was so terrible, it actually made me angry. Angry that I had spent money and time that I would never get back on that excuse for a film. Payne is based off the videogame with the same name. Max Payne was a genre breaking game, mixing ultra stylish bullet time action with a very noir-esque storyline told through gritty visuals. Actually scratch that, Max Payne the game wasn’t noir-esque, it WAS completely and totally noir.

For reasons unknown, the script writer decided to cut back all the violence and twist the original story into an unrecognizable mess. Everyone needs a hobby I guess. The basics are still there; a happy cop with a family has his life ruined when a seemingly random home burglary ends in the slaughter of his wife and child. With the case unsolved and no leads, Max is the only person left still trying to find the killer, which eventually ends up consuming his entire life. And that’s where the similarities end. The movie throws in a pharmaceutical company (corporations are evil..we get it already), unrelated Norse imagery complete with demon-like valkyries, and Chris “Ludacris” Bridges. Combined with a terribly acted cameo by Nelly Furtado, we can only assume that the casting director ran out of ideas, and turned to MTV.

Talking about bad casting decisions, Mona Sax, an assassin with an agenda is also included from the game, except she’s played by Mila Kunis. Kunis really broke out of her “Jacky from That 70’s Show” mold in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but she is completely out of her depth here. I seriously felt like laughing everytime she gritted her teeth and spoke angrily.

The speedy girl Daphne from Heroes has a brief moment in the movie, with the exact same hairdo. Yes, I had to mention that.

The main problem of the movie other than the illegible plot, is that it’s simply BORING. Half the scenes in the movie serve no purpose and the other half are the characters walking around gritty backgrounds “discovering” things the audience figured out 20 minutes ago. For a movie named “Max Payne”, there sure isn’t a lot of payne going around. There are literally two action scenes the entire movie, each of which is about 30 seconds long. The first one has a SWAT team shooting Max with automatic rifles(and missing), while he accurately takes them out with a pistol. The second “action” clip, is Max firing off 2 shots with a shotgun, slowed down so much, it takes about 30 seconds.

Seriously.

There are also a lot of scenes with the main villain looking down intensely at Max from the rooftops. You’d figure he’d rather spend the time terrorizing people and doing other villain-y things, but nope. Staring intensely at Max from the rooftops is his idea of a good night. And to be honest i’d rather go stare at someone intensely from a rooftop then watch this horrible movie again.

P.S.:  A movie named Max Payne, and I limited myself to just one pun the entire review.  Aren’t you proud?

---

Not satisfied with the direction 2006’s Superman Returns took, Warner Bros. has confirmed a reboot of the Superman Series….again. According to Jeff Robinov, the Group President of Warner Bros. Pictures, “Superman didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to”.  DC just can’t seem to get it right.  The Batman series has been rebooted, and so has The Hulk.

The Superman reboot does actually make sense, since Warner Bros. is planning a Justice League movie within the next three years.  Superman Returns was decent, but the whole “Superman is a father” theme wouldn’t have fit into the context of Justice League.

For those not in the know,  the Justice League is DC’s version of a combined superhero team; popular members include Wonder Woman, Batman, Superman, and the Green Lantern.  DC is rushing to release a Justice League movie to compete with the upcoming Marvel movie counterpart, The Avengers. The Avengers consists of Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, and more.

A Justice League superman would have to have nothing tying him down, fatherhood would definitely complicate the movie.  There’s already a whole set of characters to cover, bringing additional problems would just lengthen and slow the movie down. Robinov also wants to give Superman a darker tone.  This is nonsensical, since Superman has always been the polar opposite of Batman.  Where Batman is dark, depressed, and gloomy, Superman has always been a much lighter character.  Warner Bros. is probably equating the popularity of The Dark Knight with the character’s dark theme, and assume this is what audiences want to see.  Well, here’s one person who doesn’t want them to go that route.

Lastly, DC has confirmed a new Batman Movie to be released within three years.  It’s got some pretty large shoes to fill, especially the actor playing the new villain (unconfirmed as for now).  Two unnamed DC superhero movies are also confirmed, in addition to The Watchmen.

Pretty big news.

---

If you’re familiar with any of Judd Apatow’s and Seth Rogen’s stable of work (Knocked Up, Superbad, The 40 Year Old Virgin), then Pineapple Express is going to be familiar territory. Familiar, hilarious territory. As usual, Seth Rogen plays the anti-hero (Dale Denton) pursuing the two loves of his life, both of which aren’t exactly approved of by general society. The two loves in this case happen to be marijuana and barely legal high school girls, so it’s really not too big a surprise that they’re frowned upon. Spiderman’s James Franco also puts in a surprising performance as Denton’s stoned drug dealer (Saul Silver), giving us a crucial insight into what the Green Goblin did before he decided to jump on a flying hoverboard throwing explosive pumpkins.  Actually, this movie would explain a whole lot of that.

Apatow’s movies thrive on putting realistic, likeable characters into ridiculous situations. All the characters in this movie are people you’ve met, or known. Well, except for all the mob bosses. Unless you’re part of the mafia. Which is cool, I guess. The ridiculous situation in this case, is Denton witnessing a mob murder, then running from the guys who did it, dragging Silver along with him. Along the way they team up with newcomer Danny R. Mcbride, playing the overweight, cowardly yet hilarious Red.  Craig Robinson from the Office also puts up a particularly funny performance, while the infamous BILL LUMBERGH (Gary Cole.. yeah, I was also surprised that he had a real name apart from BILL LUMBERGH!) from Office Space seems out of his depth.

The plot moves relatively quickly, with laugh out loud moments almost all the way through. There’s very little of the Hollywood polish on this one which just adds to the overall humour. The guys know they’re making a funny movie and they’re letting you join in on the joke. Half the movie feels like it was made up on the spot. The dialogue is natural, and never “tries too hard” to be funny.

The movie does sport two flaws, which are more annoying than anything else. The first is Rogen’s tendency towards politics. A lot of the movie feels like a forced advertisement for the legalization of marijuana. Sure, we know you like pot, but you don’t have to stuff your views down our throats Seth. People are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. I think. Are we? The second flaw is the long run time. 2 hours is definitely pushing it for a comedy. There were a lot of minor unnecessary scenes that felt more like DVD extras than scenes that should have been put in a theatrical release. It did feel like it was dragging near the middle, but the humour is just so explosive and funny, that it makes up for it.
Overall, I would say.. go see it.

---

If you’ve seen a movie made in the last year or two, it’s probably based on a graphic novel or comic book. Let’s face it, the geeks are growing up and influencing everything. Even Hollywood is no longer safe. In fact, this years two biggest movies The Dark Knight and Iron Man were based on comic books.

 

Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, and Michael Caine took some pretty comic-y characters, and transformed them into “real” people.
But remember back in a time long ago (ok, maybe it never ended) when movies were based on books? Honest to God, black text on a white page, no pretty pictures, novels? And of course, you’d have the people who had read the book having these long, drawn out annoying arguments about whether the movie was better or worse than the book. As Hollywood rapidly runs out of original ideas, these movies are making a huge comeback, especially in the children’s fantasy genre. Just to name a few, Harry Potter, The Golden Compass, Narnia, etc. etc. So what’s really the deal with these movies?

Novels converted into screenplays have always been a mixed bag. It’s great to see a well made film adaptation of your favourite books, where the characters, scenes and dialogue are well fleshed out in the screenplay, and where everything comes to life. The Lord of the Rings is a good relatively recent example. It had a great screenplay, great effects, and excellent actors. There was very little to complain about.

On the flip side, there’s also the very high risk of the books content being churned into something that Hollywood feels would be more acceptable to the masses, with the resulting product being something barely recognizable from the original. Take “Timeline” for example, a novel that was designed to break thestereotypes that surround modern views on the Middle Ages. It took our modern conceptions of the old world, dashed them down, and gave us a whole new look at life in the 1600s.
The movie was pretty good too. And by “pretty good”, I mean “a farcical disaster”. It took all the stereotypes it could find about the Middle Ages, stuffed it into one movie, added some terrible acting, some cheesy special effects, and then rushed it out into theatres. Unfortunately, this seems to be a characteristic of almost all of Crichtons book-to-movies.

An odd occurrence is when a movie adapted from the screenplay becomes iconic in itself; the source material becomes irrelevant, as the movie has become strong enough to stand on it’s own. In the case of a movie like The Godfather (originally written by Mario Puzo), the movie stays relatively close to the source material. Some scenes are almost word for word from the novel. However, the content matter is something that works much better on the silver screen than in prose. Reading about a gun fight just doesn’t have the same effect as watching it. And I don’t think there’s any way to represent Marlon Brando saying “Bonnnaaserrraa” in text.

Ultimately, I think that a movie doesn’t necessarily have to follow the source material to be good; a good movie will always be good, and a bad movie bad, regardless of the source material. Some people tend to lose sight of this fact when talking about screenplay adaptations. The movie could be brilliant, but still regarded as “bad” in the eyes of some, since it strayed from the original source material. Don’t think about the book, just enjoy the movie!*

*or walk out halfway if it’s really terrible.

 

http://theuncritic.org