Jul
24
I went to see “The Dark Knight” a third time last night at the AMC Burbank 16. On Wednesdays, the theater chain offers free popcorn with your ticket purchase; fun fact: due to some technical glitch at the kiosk where I bought my ticket, I didn’t get a coupon for free popcorn — buggeration! Then I got in the wrong line for the auditorium I’d bought a ticket for. Here’s some sample dialogue from that cherished memory:
Me: “Is this the line for ‘The Dark Knight?’”
People in Front of Me: “Uh, I dunno. We hope so.”
I stayed in that line for a good 10 minutes before finding out there was another line that was the one true path to “The Dark Knight.” But I’d gotten there plenty early, and even after I had to pay for my small popcorn, I found a good seat in the auditorium — the one for the 7:45 showing. The worst, I thought, was behind me.
Then I saw a trailer for “High School Musical 3.”
I sat there — mouth agape — like Beavis and/or Butt-Head do while watching a music video that offends their sensibilities for the trailer’s interminable duration. “High School Musical 3?!” Not only is the title generic to the point of meaninglessness — Is it about a high school musical, or is it a musical about high school, or is it BOTH? –but the content is so vanilla, so flavorless, it seems to barely qualify as a movie.
I’m vaguely aware of the fact that the first to installments in the HSM saga were highly-rated TV movies produced by Disney. It strikes me as a bit odd that movie three in the franchise is the first theatrical release. Film adaptations of popular TV shows were all the rage in the ’90s. One of them — “The Fugitive” — even wound up being good. But a film adaptation of a TV movie? Something feels off about that. And it’s not even a Lifetime Original woman-in-jeopardy type of picture. It’s a movie that perpetuates the myth that high school is actually fun.
At least when this crapola was on TV, I could easily avoid it. Now when I go to the flicks for the next couple of months, I run the risk of having to sit through the trailer again — gah! This thing was attached to “The Dark Knight!” All bets are off on what else it might be in front of in the coming weeks. It’s bad enough that I had to endure that rotten and incomprehensible trailer for “Terminator Salvation” again, but coupled with the preview “High School Musical 3,” it’s like a one-two punch of soulless franchises assaulting my eyes and ears. Worst of all, there wasn’t a trailer for “Watchmen” to restore my faith in film projectionists.
These kids today. They simply have no taste whatsoever in musicals about high school. When I was a younger, my peers were into “Grease.” It may have been PG, but try watching it with your folks and not feeling a little uncomfortable in spots. “High School Musical 3″ looks like a witless, watered-down, family-friendly mutant cousin of “Grease.” Why do kids eat this stuff up? If I ever have childen — that’s a pretty big “if” I’m beginning to realize — and they get into this piffle, I’m selling them. I can always use that money to buy another ticket to see “The Dark Knight.”
-Brad Lohan
Jul
22
Roger Ebert gives star ratings in his Chicago Sun-Times movie reviews. He’s famous for the “thumbs-up”/”thumbs-down” shorthand he developed with the late Gene Siskel back in 1975 when their “Sneak Previews” PBS series first launched. So how do his star ratings translate to the up or down positioning of his thumb, you ask? Well, out of a possible four stars, two or fewer is a “thumbs down;” two and a half or more is a “thumbs up.” This is the most I’ve ever used the word “thumb” in a paragraph.
I used to watch Siskel and Ebert fairly often as a kid. They were a couple of curmudgeons whose taste in films was drastically different from my own at the time. I remember Siskel saying once that “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze” was “just as boring and violent as the first one” — blasphemy! But it was always fun to see them vehemently disagree with each other or hail a movie like “Under Siege” as one of the top ten films of 1991.
After Gene Siskel died in 1999, Ebert invited several different critics to sit opposite him on the show and see what they could do with their thumbs. He ultimately settled on the tasteless whelp Richard Roeper — a doofus who once said that Tim Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” was better than the original — and “Siskel & Ebert At the Movies” was retitled “At the Movies With Ebert and Roeper;” by this time, Disney had long since acquired the program and done away with the “Sneak Previews” moniker.
I never liked Roeper as you may have guessed. When he was alive, Siskel had bought John Travolta’s white suit from “Saturday Night Fever.” There’s something equally creepy and awesome about that. I liked to imagine him dancing around his house in it. Roeper never had that same mystique. He was just a goofball with middling taste in movies.
But both he and Roger Ebert have announced they’re splitting from the Disney-owned ABC network and taking their thumbs with them, according to the Associated Press. Ebert co-owns the copyright (with Siskel’s widow) to thumbs-as-a-mode-of-film-critique, so whenever you give a movie a thumbs up or down, you’re violating copyright law!
I’m sure ABC will take the show’s existing format — gutted as it is — and simply fill the two aisle seats with a pair of younger, hipper twerps that make Roeper look like Pauline Kael. Instead of thumbs signifying a movie is good or bad, they’ll have a more of-the-moment criteria. I’m guess it’ll be shorthand culled from text messaging, IMs and emails. For example, if a comedy’s funny, it’ll get an “LMAO” or if it’s really funny, a “ROTFLMAO.” Average movies will get a “meh.” Bad movies will get a frowny-face. Good movies will be vaguely described as “entertaining.” Excellent movies will have the word “so” overly-emphasized in a manner I’ve come to hate: “It was so entertaining.”
I give this new format zero stars.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
21
The first time I saw “Clerks” was when I was 15. A high school buddy and I had rented it on a whim, not really knowing what it was. Indie movies played at some of the art houses in Seattle, but we lived in the suburbs, a million miles away. The only time I talked my mother into driving me to the Neptune downtown when I was a teenager was to see “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie.” At any rate, my friend and I had no idea what we were getting into when we popped “Clerks” into his dad’s VCR. All I knew was that it was a comedy set at a convenience store and looked like it had been shot on black-and-white surveillance cameras.
We were pleasantly surprised with the film to say the least. The astonishing amount of dirty talk would make a sailor blush and a couple of pervy teenagers to laugh until it hurts. The script is funny enough for me to forgive some of the weak performances and the production values that make Troma movies look like “Iron Man.” I still maintain that it’s writer-director Kevin Smith’s best film. I’ve seen it countless times over the years and was there on opening day for the somewhat unnecessary sequel.
Kevin Smith’s latest film, “Zack and Miri Make a Porno,” doesn’t sound like a radical departure from his typical output. Seth Rogen — one of my favorite comic actors of late — plays Zack, hopefully bringing some of the Apatow-verse magic to the proceedings. Trouble is, according to Cinema Blend, the movie’s been slapped with an NC-17 rating by those guardians of what’s good and holy in this country, the Motion Picture Association of America.
I hate the MPAA. Our ratings system is a crock of bull. I understand that parents want to have some vague idea of what they’re getting into when they take their toddler to see “The Dark Knight.” But movie ratings are simply meaningless, and some parents are borderline retarded. The prevailing attitude is that violence is okay, but sex is verboten. This I don’t understand. Most folks will go their entire lives without killing anyone — even in this country. But very few of us will die virgins. What gives?
Kirby Dick’s documentary, “This Film is Not Yet Rated,” which includes interviews with Kevin Smith among other indie filmmakers, explores the hypocrisy of the ratings system, particularly the dreaded, filthy-dirty NC-17 rating. NC-17 took the place of the X-rating in 1990. It originally meant no children under 17 were admitted, but was later revised so that 17-year-olds weren’t admitted either, meaning you had to be 18 to see an NC-17 movie. Make sense? No, it doesn’t,
What’s even more perplexing about the NC-17 rating is movies that are given one are more or less unreleasable by a major studio. That’s right, if your big-budget summer tentpole gets an NC-17, well, you’re going back to the editing suite and cutting that thing down to an R. No respectable theater chain with stadium seating and 30 minutes of commercials before the trailers start is going to make room for your sick and twisted porno movie. But why? People 18 and over go to the movies. In fact, people between 18-35 are something of a popular demographic that movie studios target more often that not.
The existence of the NC-17 rating defies logic. The MPAA’s attitude is that you can make whatever kind of movie you want. They don’t discourage you from making an NC-17 movie. That’s censorship! But, if your movie gets an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, it isn’t going to be shown at the local AMC, or Regal or Edwards movie houses. That’s somehow — ahem — not censorship. It’s B.S. is what it is.
It also doesn’t explain what in the hell the R-rating is all about. Snipping a frame or two here and there to get your obscene NC-17 movie re-rated and branded with a more audience-friendly R somehow protects impressionable 17-year-olds from seeing something they’re a whole year away from being mature enough to experience in its original form. Of course, I don’t get the R-rating either. You have to be accompanied by a parent if you’re under 17, but some R-rated movies were originally NC-17 movies with a few seconds of sex and/or violence cut out. It’s not like they excise entire reels from these things. So it’s okay to see a de-fanged NC-17 movie if you go with your folks? Wha…?
All that being said, Kevin Smith’s going to have to do something with “Zack and Miri Make a Porno.” It’ll have a difficult time making its $25 million production budget back on the art house circuit — the only game in town that’ll show NC-17 pictures like “The Dreamers” and “Lust, Caution.” I’m disappointed that some of the dirty jokes are going to be cut out. But I guess it’ll be a movie that, like “Clerks,” I might just have to wait and see on video.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
20
“The Dark Knight” Spoiler-Heavy Review
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Spoilers, Summer Blockbusters | 2 Comments
This review is lousy with spoilers. You might want to watch the movie before reading on.
“The Dark Knight” doesn’t give everything away in the trailer. These days, it seems like you go to the movies just to fill in the blanks between the money shots you’ve seen over and over again in the various trailers and TV spots. But “The Dark Knight” isn’t without its surprises. I thought I’d spoiled every last bit of business in the film before I went to see it — I’m too impatient — but this movie still blindsided me a time or two.
What I want to talk about here are those surprises; you can read my spoiler-free review here. “The Dark Knight” does a lot of things you don’t expect it to. Since this is a Christopher Nolan film, and his favorite movie of mine is “Memento,” let’s start where “The Dark Knight” ends.
Batman decides to shoulder the blame for all of Harvey Dent’s crimes, so Harv can — ahem — save face in the eyes of the public. Maybe he believed in Harvey Dent a little too much. But what’s important to consider is the possibility that Gordon won’t be able to “make it stick,” as they say on cop shows. Remember that at the top of the film, Batman chided the gun-toting copycat Batmen for trying to take on Scarecrow and some assorted thugs at a drug buy gone sour. Batman’s fairly protective of his brand and outspoken about his “one rule:” no killing. Now many fans were infuriated by Batman leaving Ra’s Al Ghul for dead in the first film, claiming Batty acted out-of-character and violated his own code. I maintain that Al Ghul didn’t die at the end of “Batman Begins;” did anyone see a body? Any any rate, by having Gordon pin a handful of homicides on Batman, he’s going on a lot of faith that Gothamites will accept that Batman’s started gunning down random criminals and dirty cops alike.
What’s more, if Batman’s supposedly killing folks, it’s inexplicable as to why he’d allow the Joker to live. I was just surprised as you that Batman saved the Clown Prince of Crime from certain death. He could’ve at least opted for Spider-Man’s tactic of allowing the villain to accidentally kill himself. I’m not sure how exactly I feel about the Joker living. There’s something unsatisfying about walking out of a theater knowing that the badguy’s not worm food. With Heath Ledger’s passing, it’s impossible — or at least, in extremely poor taste — to consider that the role will be recast for a third film. We’ve doubtless seen the last of the character, but knowing that he’s locked up for the rest of his days just doesn’t sit right with me.
Now Rachel Dawes’ death came as a major surprise to me. With critics and fans united against Katie Holmes’ performance in movie one, it seemed entirely possible that the character would just be written out of the second film; Batman’s never been in an LTR that’s carried over into a sequel before anyway. But the role was recast with Maggie Gyllenhaal, a move that I thought suggested the filmmakers were trying to break convention, not to mention Batman’s heart. For the bulk of her lifespan in “The Dark Knight,” she’s involved with Harvey Dent. She does have one icky kissing scene with Bruce Wayne but is soon vaporized in a bomb blast moments after accepting Dent’s proposal.
That isn’t to say I’m disappointed she was killed. I like Gyllenhaal as an actress, but the Rachel Dawes character isn’t terribly interesting. She’s functionary, like too many love interests in these types of films, someone who either needs to be saved, or when not in imminent danger, compelling the hero to quit saving other people; it’s an odd dichotomy, but one that gets old quickly. Once I’d like to see a love interest in a superhero movie who’s kind of thrilled with the idea of dating a superhero. But I digress. With Dawes in the grave, the movie Batman can potentially be more like his comic book counterpart — as celibate as his myriad fans.
Who’s to say where the franchise will go next? Nolan’s obviously trying to avoid convention, and bully for him. The formula for comic book movies needs to be torn apart and reassembled as something else, something more. Fans of superhero movies, but not the comics they’re based upon, have seen enough at this point to expect more than just another product off the assembly line. They’re ready for films like “The Dark Knight” and the upcoming “Watchmen,” films that try to escape from the trappings of the genre and surprise even the most jaded fans like me.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
20
I stumbled upon this MTV interview with Val Kilmer about “The Dark Knight.” It’s fairly short, but extremely uncomfortable to watch. At first, Kilmer seems a little astonished by the fact that there’s another bat-film. Or maybe he’s confused that the interviewer’s asking him about a film he’s not in.
Kilmer’s a bit of a tough cookie to begin with; some of the stories about his behavior on the set of “Island of Dr. Moreau” are legendary among divas. That he’s doubled in size since “Batman Forever” only makes him twice as intimidating, especially when stacked against the 98-pound nerdling asking stupid questions.
When Kilmer launches into a rant about Oliver Stone single-handedly inventing indepedent cinema, the interview is clearly not going in the direction that was originally intended. I suppose the dweeby interviewer was trying to steer the conversation into a delightful little rant about how super-lame director Joel Schumacher’s take on Batman was. Apparently, someone didn’t get the memo that the Internet was invented solely to rail on Schumacher and his two bat-films. We’ve covered this ground before, MTV.
But Kilmer’s clearly had enough of being these types of questions by nimrods trying to be cute. I can’t say I think he’s out of line. He can be a solid actor when he wants to be. Had Sam Raimi occupied the director’s chair on “Batman Forever” — he was rumored to have been up for it — Kilmer could have quite possibly been in a much better, nipple-free installment. But alas, his is second only to “Batman and Robin” when it comes to the least-loved chapters in the franchise.
Kilmer ultimately compares himself to the Beatles during the interview, and suddenly turns into Bob Dylan at the end. This is just one of those great little clips you almost never see in the world of sterile, softball interviews. If only Kilmer had given the interviewer a purple nurple, the interview would’ve been the greatest thing I’ve ever seen.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
20
Attention Theater-Goers: Concession Stands Sell Concessions, Not Automobiles
Filed Under Movies | Leave a Comment
One thing that used to really irritate me when I worked at a movie house was how customers — I’ll never call them the euphemism “guests,” since I never invited them — seemed to be extremely conflicted about what to buy from the concession stand. More than likely, whatever goodies they ended up getting weren’t going to be their last meal. But these idiots would put more thought into it than buying a house or a car. And almost invariably, two hours later, I’d be drafted to clean the empty auditorium and discover that most of customers ate about three bites of whatever it was they ultimately did settle on.
Like I said, I found this really irritating as an employee behind the concession stand. Nowadays, it’s really, really irritating to be customer myself, stuck waiting in line behind one of these indecisive simpletons, or worse, a whole pack of ‘em. L.A. traffic being what it is, I tend to arrive at the theater with no time to waste before the trailers start. I like to grab a popcorn and a soda to go with the eye-candy I’m about to watch. I know this before I even get in line. I know this because it’s what I always get. It’s simple, uncomplicated and a transaction that takes less than a minute…unless the cashier has to swipe my debit card a second time.
You’d think that most people at the movies have probably been at one time or another in the past. Maybe they don’t go as often as I do, but still, you’d think they’ve previously experimented with different combinations of popcorn, soda and candy — perhaps even developed a taste for a certain size, flavor or brand. Nope. Either these half-wits have never eaten junk food before, though their waistlines tell a different story, or they’re simply on this planet to drive me into a blind rage.
See, I have this theory. It’s pretty wild, so brace yourself. This theory I have is that if I get in the shortest line, I won’t have to wait terribly long to get to the front of it. However, if I’m standing behind someone who puts more brainpower into a decision involving overpriced snacks than millions of Americans did into getting sub-prime loans, my theorem goes right out the window. The longer lines on either side of me will shrink away, and there I’ll be, waiting endlessly for Mr. Magoo ahead of me to make up his damn mind about a medium or large soda.
It’s even worse when you have to get in a long line because there’s not a single short line, and the person right in front of you, the one who’s been waiting even longer than you have, will not have war-gamed his order before reaching the counter. His internal struggle over Raisinets or Milk Duds will not even begin until he’s asked by the concessionaire just want in the hell he wants. If it’s a couple, or three or more people, then grab a chair. You’re going to be there awhile.
I guess I could smuggle in food like some people do and bypass the concession stand altogether. I just think movie theater popcorn tastes better than that crap you make in the microwave; microwaveable popcorn is meant to be strung up around a Christmas tree, not ingested. I also don’t wear baggy enough clothes to conceal much on my person. Of course, I don’t need to eat anything at all during a movie. But it’s part of the experience. I can’t let some morons who’ve clearly never made a decision before in their lives diminish my good time at the movies. I just wish they’d wait until the movie starts to turn their brains off.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
18
“The Dark Knight” Review
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Summer Blockbusters | 1 Comment
The following review is spoiler-free.
Before the movie even started last night, I was already thinking about my review. How would I make it different from all the other reactions to this, clearly the most talked-about movie of the year? Unless I wound up hating it, I began to fear that I’d just sound like every other overly effusive web-critic. I absolutely wanted my experience seeing the film to be different in some way.
Then, about 30 minutes into the movie, some joker at the ArcLight Hollywood pulled the fire alarm. The screen went dark. Lights began flashing. A klaxon whooped. I cupped my hands over my mouth in horror, like those women in 1950s science-fiction movies about giant insects or aliens with exposed brains. Yeah, I thought, my review’s going to be different — different in that I’ll be talking about just the first act.
Pissed-off Bat-fans began filing out of the auditorium, not to escape a firey death, but to scream at some poor usher who makes $7.50/hour. We were going to watch the remaining two hours of this movie even if the theater burned down around us. Word quickly filtered back into the auditorium that it had been a false alarm, and the movie would start back up again where we’d left off; I believe Morgan Freeman had been in the middle of saying something.
I wasn’t infuriated by what had happened. Some movie-goers take opportunities such as these to play the part of the unhappy customer. But I’ve been an usher during a crisis (once the audio was out-of-synch with the picture during a showing of “Entrapment” at my theater way back when), so I can empathize with all those schmucks in nametags and crappy uniforms, facing down an angry mob with torches, pitchforks and JuJu Bees.
It took about 15 minutes, but the movie started back up again. I guess I should quit hemming and hawing now and review the monster already. So, as the Joker says in the flick, “Here…we…go!”
The movie is set a year after the events of “Batman Begins.” The arrest of mobster Carmine Falcone in movie one has left a power vacuum in Gotham City. Crime bosses are at their wit’s end. A masked vigilante called The Batman (Bruce Wayne) is inspiring honest cops like Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the new D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) to put the squeeze on organized criminals, hitting them where it hurts — in their wallets. But there’s this other character on the streets of Gotham — a purple-suited lunatic with crumbling ghost-white facepaint, dark rings around his eyes and a permanent grin carved into his face. He calls himself The Joker. And wait until you see his pencil trick.
Heath Ledger’s Joker warrants a paragraph of his own, I think. Constantly smacking his lips as though he can taste the menace he exudes, and rattling off a different origin story to each of his victims, Ledger reinvents the role completely. His bizarre speech cadence seems specifically designed to keep you off-kilter. The genius of his crimes, particularly the bank heist at the top of the film, suggests a method to his madness and that’s to drive others even madder. What I like most about this take on the Joker is that he’s not about to use some doomsday weapon, like that goofy microwave emitter in “Batman Begins,” on the city. No, the Joker’s carefully constructed plan to bring the city to its knees involves kidnappings, bombings and presenting the film’s heroes — Batman, Gordon and Dent — with some good, old-fashioned comic book moral dilemmas.
If I had one criticism of the film, it’s that “The Dark Knight” is a bit overwhelming. There’s just so much going on. You can’t process it all with a single viewing. It goes so many places superhero movies have avoided. This being the first sequel, of course the titular hero wants to quit, but that’s about the one and only genre convention the script hadn’t massaged out.
Director and co-writer Chrispher Nolan is more confident this time around. His “Batman Begins” feels like a smallish character study when stacked against this film. Here, he brings a larger degree of IMAX-friendly scope, but an even stronger attention to character than the first movie. This film is less about Batman than its predecessor, something I imagine will be a concern among some fans, but the attention is shifted to Harvey Dent. His thread in the film is the most shattering. When he’s ultimately disfigured and transformed into Two-Face, the horror of his predicament externalizes the destruction of the man within. Eckhart’s performance in the film has been undeservedly overlooked as everyone’s busy trying to will a posthumous Oscar nod into existence for Ledger. But Eckhart does some of the best work of his career in this film as well.
All that being said, is “The Dark Knight” worthy of the Oscar buzz? Well, I’m not the world’s biggest fan of awards shows, and a pile of Oscars won’t bring back Heath Ledger. We’re so much the poorer for his passing. This film is a testament to his talents as an actor. It honors him just as any golden statuette would.
“The Dark Knight” sets a new standard for the superhero genre, coming at the tail end of a summer loaded with game-changing movies about masked men. It’s satisfying, it’s unsettling, it’s a movie you’ll be talking about long after you leave the theater. To paraphrase the Joker (he’s got all the best lines), it’ll put a smile on that face.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
17
Who Watches the “Watchmen” Trailer? (Updated With 100% More Trailer)
Filed Under Comics, Movies, Political Films | 1 Comment
If you haven’t read Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ doubleplusgood graphic novel, the trailer for the film version of “Watchmen” might seem a little esoteric. The book in and of itself is just so loaded with ideas and imagination, squeezing selected images from it into a two-minute trailer simply doesn’t do the story justice. That isn’t to say the trailer comes across as a hollow exercise in style-over-substance, like director Zach Snyder’s previous film, “300.” I get a real sense of reverence for the source material in watching this trailer play out, in seeing the characters from the mini-series living and breathing against the backdrop of an alternate 1985.
The trailer’s front-loaded before prints of “The Dark Knight.” Expect a collective love-explosion among hardcore geeks at the midnight screenings tonight. The “Watchmen” trailer couldn’t be a better appetizer for Nolan’s potential Bat-masterpiece. With the pre-release hype at critical mass, I almost expect the experience of seeing “TDK” to be like attending a mega-church.
I’ve definitely warmed up to Snyder’s “Watchmen,” and the trailer has compounded my interest. I’m even thinking of cracking open the graphic novel again this weekend. It’s been a few years. In the meantime, I can’t wait to watch the Watchmen, however briefly, on the big screen.
“The world will look up and shout, ‘Save us!’ and I’ll whisper, ‘No.’” Bad. Ass.
UPDATE: Empire had it up for a blink the other day. It’s back again.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
17
Ashley Scott Needs More Work
Filed Under Movies, TV | 2 Comments
“Birds of Prey” — the short-lived WB series loosely based on the DC comic book — hit DVD earlier this week. I remember watching the first few of episodes back in 2002 during the one and only month that pissed away money on cable TV; I chalk that up to being “young and foolish.” After I’ve finished watching the entire series (I believe it had a 14-episode run), I’ll post a full review. I only revisited the first two eps last night.
In short, the series is set in the near future. Batman’s vanished from New Gotham, but his daughter Helena Kyle — played by the equisite beauty Ashley Scott — has continued Batty’s endless war on crime. Calling herself The Huntress, she kicks bad people in the head and bickers with her mentor — wheelchair-bound former Batgirl, Barbara Gordon (Dina Meyer). Huntress also takes after her mother, Seline Kyle, in that she possess some cat-like or Catwoman-like abilities: her pupils change shape, she has superhuman reflexes, and there’s a feline snarling sound when she’s doing something catty.
I can’t really speak to the overall quality of the series yet. Thus far, I’m liking the different kind of energy the female leads bring to the proceedings. In a male-dominated medium, it’s refreshing to see chick superheroes who don’t take their jobs so damn seriously. Or maybe I’m just burned out on brooding, solitary and kinda boring men in tights.
What’s even more enjoyable about the series is seeing Ashley Scott in all manner of tight, and sometimes midriff-baring outfits. She doesn’t wear the Huntress’ traditional costume while out on patrol, alas, opting for a low-cut black bodysuit with a trenchcoat. But her street clothes more than make up for her fairly conservative crime-fighting attire.
I could leer at this poor woman all day. I remember I saw her at the grocery store one time, and nearly fainted. Tragically, she was with her husband at the time, but according to her IMDb page, she’s since divorced — wawaweewah!
Now for some damn reason, Ms. Scott doesn’t seem to be getting very good roles these days. Who wouldn’t want the girl that played Gigolo Jane in their movie or TV show? Yeesh, I remember reading that her role in that crapola “Friends” spin-off “Joey” was recast once the pilot had been picked up. I’ve only seen her — albeit briefly — in “S.W.A.T.” since “Birds of Prey” went off the air.
No, she’s not a terribly good actress, but neither is Jessica Alba. And Ms. Alba was also on a short-lived TV series, that being “Dark Angel,” before achieving mega-fame by pretending to be a blonde in dozens of movies. I believe Ashley Scott is actually blonde in real life, although she’s relentlessly hot as a brunette on “Birds of Prey.”
Simply put, I want more eyefuls of Ashley Scott. I’ve got a dozen or so more episodes of “Birds of Prey,” and then that’s it. I’m sure as hell not going to rent “The Kingdom” or “Strange Wilderness” to see more of her. I might be crazy about her, but I’m not insane. She just needs more roles, better roles, roles involving “adult situations” or “brief sensuality” especially.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
15
“Death Race” to the Bottom
Filed Under Movies | Leave a Comment
Pity Paul Thomas Anderson. He shares 2/3rds of his name with video game adaptation auteur, Paul W.S. Anderson. Paul Thomas Anderson — director of “Boogie Nights,” “Magnolia” and last year’s “There Will Be Blood” — has doubtless gone into meetings with producers who thought he was “the ‘Mortal Kombat’ guy.” No, that’s Paul W.S. Anderson. Paul Thomas Anderson (sometimes credited as P.T. Anderson) is a filmmaker. Paul W.S. Anderson has some vague idea as to where to point the camera once it’s speeding.
Is there any question about which Paul Anderson directed the upcoming “Death Race 2000″ remake? Given the more economical — not to mention less anachronistic — title “Death Race,” this film looks like the bastard offspring of “The Running Man” and “The Fast and the Furious.” It stars Jason Statham as Jason Statham, a former NASCAR driver (and a British one, no less) sent to prison for murdering his wife; but wait, he’s innocent! Now he must compete in the very unlikely “Death Race,” a prison-sponsored event organized by Joan Allen(!) that grants the victor an early parole.
Exploitation flicks like this just don’t work anymore. Even the lowest common denominator is too sophisticated for “Death Race.” Please don’t get me wrong about exploitation movies. I absolutely love “Escape From New York,” but the ‘96 sequel/remake, “Escape From L.A.,” is proof that after about 1990, B-movies with B+ budgets get a “D” from mainstream audiences. It’s goes back to that old saying, “You can’t put lipstick on a pig.” The ’70s and ’80s were when high-concept, low-rent movies could be modest hits and sometimes cult classics. But they were very much a product of their own time, trying to be more exploitive than the movie that had come out the previous week.
These days, it’s not like that. Movies are safe, their sharp edges smoothed over by fickle test audiences. Even trailers are approved by a commitee of under-employed flakes in focus groups. Jeez, the “Death Race” trailer clearly establishes that Statham’s character is innocent of killing his wife. Why is that character bit even brought up in the preview? Once I’d like to see a movie about a so-called anti-hero who’s in the hoosegow from a crime he actually committed. Imagine how much more badass would the trailer have been with this dialogue exchange:
Cellmate: “What’re you in for?”
Statham: “Killing my wife.”
Cellmate: “Didja do it?”
Statham: “Yeah… It just wasn’t working out.”
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a more interesting character. Statham playing some wrongly-accused con simply means that during the course of the film, he’ll uncover whoever the hell set him up in the first place and ultimately clear his name…after kicking the guilty man’s ass. But since he’s the hero of the movie and will invariably win the climactic race, who cares if he’s innocent? He gets to go free regardless. Again, it’s that “safe zone” that Hollywood wants all their dumb little movies — even a hunk of junk like this — to fall into. You can’t have the movie end with a convicted killer going free. Never mind that the movie’s called “Death Race.”
I loathe Paul W.S. Anderson and his ignominious output. How’d you like to have “Resident Evil” and “Alien vs. Predator” on your resume? He’s every inch the studio hack. He doesn’t make films. He makes product. “Death Race” is simply the next bright, shiny thing to come off his assembly line. All his work is the antithesis of Paul Thomas Anderson’s oeuvre. Let’s just hope that on the day P.T. Anderson does win his Oscar for Best Director or Best Screenplay or Best Anderson, they get his damn name right.
-Brad Lohan