SoulHonky

"I'm not a candidate; I'm part of a movement."

That line is probably the most important in Milk, not just because it defines the drive and passion of Harvey Milk but also because it tells us what the movie is about. While Milk is a very interesting look at the rise of Milk and the gay rights movement, it seems more about the latter than the former. The movie starts by focusing on Harvey's life and struggles but that is all quickly overwhelmed by the politics and the movement. 

In the end, we're really left with no real portrait of Harvey the man. We are shown his biggest battles but his private life remains a mystery. His struggles with his lover Jack aren't really fleshed out (no pun intended) and we just see Diego Luna's character as a boy toy/headcase. We have love scenes but little love itself. Men are picked up easily and the only emotion comes when they're leaving. And I have to admit, part of me was intrigued most by Josh Brolin's Dan White, a man who was fighting a losing battle that he may not have believed in but believed he needed to fight. 

The most confusing part, however, was why this film wasn't released before the election. No, I don't think it would have changed the outcome of Prop 8 but the studio lost a ton of free publicity by not throwing themselves into the political maelstrom. Perhaps they feared that some people might have pulled away from the film, not wanting anything to do with Hollywood's political posturing but I doubt those people were going  to see the film no matter when it was released. 

All that being said, it's a very strong movie with some incredible acting. Sean Penn has to be a frontrunner for the Best Actor Oscar. I thought it dragged a bit in the middle but it's still one of the year's best and gets a SoulHonky recommendation, whatever that is worth.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:28 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I know there are questions, I'm sure there are answers, but I don't really care about either.

That's essentially how I feel about Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut. It was an entertaining film that dragged a at the end but overall was interesting to watch. What it wasn't, however, was thought provoking. As soon as the film ended, I was basically done with the film. I wasn't thinking about any of the questions, didn't try to interpret any of the many metaphors. I was just entertained and ready to move on.

One of the reasons for that might have been the fact that the film had so many ideas that it never really got any of them across. Spike Jonze said that Kaufman's approach to a film is to attempt the impossible and in this case he seemed to have tried to make a very personal film that was completely open to interpretation by the viewer. He took his personal opinion and wrapped it in so many metaphors that it was unclear what his original opinion was, or even was actually about in the first place.

Still, I liked the film and think it could have made for an intriguing David Lynchian TV show. In fact, I'd really love to see Kaufman take on a series since it might be the better medium for his vast and sprawling style.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:52 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I really wanted to love JCVD. Unfortunately, the film is simply too flawed to really recommend dropping 12 bucks on. That being said, the premise is so interesting and Jean Claude Van Damme's performance is so surprisingly captivating that it should be immediately added to people's Netflix queues. And if there was ever a movie that deserved the Funny Games/The Ring instant remake, it's this film.

The biggest problem is that the bank robbery of the element of the film isn't done well and the film gives away many elements which could have been great twists. It really could have been a great study of how we judge people and the cult of celebrity but it barely skims the surface. If I ran a Hollywood studio, I would buy the rights to this film and give it to Charlie Kauffman to work on. It could be stunning.

Even though the film was disappointing, Jean Claude Van Damme's performance is a revelation. This is truly a performance which makes you step back and reassess the actor. Perhaps it was that the film was in his native language or that he actually lived through many of the smaller moments but Van Damme was amazing. He was surprisingly (and subtley) funny and he excelled in the little moments of the film. I'd honestly be surprised if Jean Claude doesn't get a lot more offers after this film. Perhaps he won't be the lead but he could make for a great villain or solid second lead.

One random oddity was that most of the footage from the initial trailer never made it into the film. It makes sense as it might be harder to root for JCVD if he's doing coke and kicking people's asses in Bulgaria, but it definitely threw me off a bit as I watched the film.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:31 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Danny Boyle revived the drug movie and the zombie flick and his latest film breathes new life into, of all things, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Slumdog Millionaire is part Usual Suspects, part City of God as it follows the story of a boy's life as he explains how he, an uneducated man from the slums, was able to get to one question away from the "Millionaire" grand prize.

The show lacks just a little something (maybe the pacing? I'm not sure) that keeps it from being a great film but it is still very good, HIGHLY recommended, and a film that I'm sure Hollywood studios hope doesn't do well here so that they can immediatly remake it. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:31 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

After Casino Royale, I don't think anybody could expect "Quantum of Solace" to be like the vintage James Bond films but the lack of any real personality or Bond-esque touches leaves the latest 007 film feeling like it could be anybody. A few changes and the film could have as easily been a Bourne film or a Mission: Impossible flick or a redo of the "Hitman" movie.

And while that disappointment is easily overlooked, the more damning problem is that James Bond has become a reactive hero. The film portrays James as an almost rogue agent but he is always just running down a lead. The great action heroes take it to their nemeses. I think one reason many people didn't like Die Hard with a Vengeance was because it was the one time that John McLane simply reacted to others. In the past Bond films, James would be dropped into a situation and then would rewrite the rules of the game. Even in Casino Royale, he did this: wooing the wife of his enemy, not going by any cover name, etc.

The other issues with the plot is that there really isn't enough of a villain. We know who the bad guy is and know he's bad but most of the film is spent trying to figure out why exactly he is bad. You don't ever really feel any time pressure or tension. There's no ticking clock. There's no damsel in distress needing to be saved. There's just this guy who's bad. And while the Bond girls are beautiful, one is a minor character and the other is basically doing her own thing for most of the film. She's as much a separate B-story as she is tied into the main Bond adventure.

As for the action scenes, nothing touches the opening scene of Casino Royale (that admittedly is going to be a tough one to beat) but the editing of the scenes is confusing and choppy. The first scene of the movie especially is tough to follow. There are so many cuts that you have no idea what's really going on. When something cool happens, you just think, "That's cool but I have no idea how it happened."

All that being what it is, it's still an entertaining film. It's a capable movie that won't be remembered for either being one of the best or one of the worst Bond films. In fact, it probably won't be remembered at all. There's just nothing really there. I'd recommend seeing the film (albeit with lowered expectations).

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:30 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

...then you might find "Eagle Eye" to be mildly enjoyable. The film, like Live Free or Die Hard, requires you to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy the movie for what it is. You also need to realize that it's a poor man's version of the latest Die Hard and isn't in the class of it or a film like "Enemy of the State".

The biggest problem is that there really isn't anything there. The characters are blah, the chase is interesting at times but the editing is haphazard and the direction shaky. There are scenes that are kind of cool but not really exciting as they should be. Watching it, you think that a scene is cool but also immediately realize how much better it could have been. It almost feels like a rough draft of a script and a first pass at a movie. It's the type of film that i think should be on the future remake pile because it's a very interesting concept but they didn't quite pull it off.

That being said, it's still entertaining. There are a couple of lulls but nothing too bad. For Shia and director DJ Caruso, it's a definite step up from Disturbia but they still have a ways to go to craft a truly memorable action film. All in all, it's a solid effort.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:40 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

So the web re-launch of the WB is apparently up and at 'em. They sent me a nice e-mail reminding me to check out the site and when I signed on I was greeted with: "Word Up, SoulHonky! Have you met the sultry vixens of Sorority Forever yet?"

Really? "Word Up"? They greet you with a phrase that was already played out when the WB network first launched? Not a good sign. Another issue was that I couldn't get the videos to play on Firefox. Then again, Firefox is pretty much a disaster of late and I did get to see the trailer for "Sorority Forever" on Safari. The show looks like your standard soap opera. Nothing in the trailer really made it seem like something to look forward to.

I tried watching "Whatever Hollywood". It's basically a show about three girls making videos for their website. Two of the first three videos are "comedic" "rap" songs and that's basically all you need to know. Isn't about time that people stop thinking rap songs about random every day things is high comedy? Well, I guess if you think greeting people with "Word Up!" is cool, the answer's probably a no.

On the bright side, The Jeanie Tate Show is pretty funny. (I tried to embed it but it wasn't loading so here's the link.)

Still, nothing on the WB can top their greeting, if just because it got me to google the Cameo song and find the old classic. I'm sure the girls at "Whatever Hollywood" will find some "new" material in this video. (Although getting a LeVar Burton cameo wouldn't be a bad idea).

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:00 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I'm not a huge fan of Ben Stiller but "Tropic Thunder" was an funny funny movie. Unfortunately, I saw it under some adverse conditions (the guy sitting behind me had the loudest, most annoying laugh I've dealt with in ages) which hurt some of the jokes but overall it's a film I have to recommend. I preferred "Pineapple Express" but I have to admit that this is a better, more complete script. Whereas "Express" seemed slapped together and extremely loose, this film was well-orchestrated. Then again, when you're spending 90 million dollars (three times as much as "Express", then you can't play it as fast and lose.

The one issue I had with the film (or moreso with the audience I saw it with) is the "Chappelle Concern". When making jokes about race, are people laughing for the right reasons? In this case, I think a lot of the people in the audience weren't. They laughed out loud whenever Downey did his imitation of a black man but whenever Brandon T. Jackson put him in his place, they were silent.  Thankfully, Downey Jr. didn't have any real quotables so I was saved from hearing other people mimic him while walking outside the theater.

All in all, it was a very funny movie and a great send-up of Hollywood and the crazies that make up the acting/studio landscape.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:42 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Hancock is not a quality movie. The story structure is terrible. There's nothing really going on. But you know what? It was a pretty entertaining 90 minutes. Yes, it plays more like a collection of funny scenes, most of the good parts of which were in the trailer but I still enjoyed watching Will Smith play a drunk, assholish superhero and many lulls in the film were glossed over by Charlize Theron looking her best since 2 Days in the Valley.

The film is basically an hour of character study and half our of plot. It's like watching the pilot of a TV series and then having the rest of the series condensed into a half hour at the end. So while I wouldn't recommend the film to everyone (especially those who already know they don't like Peter Berg's films), I had a good time and would tell anyone who's looking to kill 90 minutes this weekend that it's a nice trifle/diversion. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:40 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Not much to say. It was a well-made film but it didn't grab me. The villain wasn't all that impressive and there were a dozen moments that had me telling myself "Cut it some slack, it's a comic book movie". Almost every time someone was cornered, they got out of it because the villain was inept rather than the hero actually doing something. The casting was top notch. It could be a nice comeback film for Gwyneth Paltrow since she played a likable person and connected to the mass audience for the first time since Se7en. Robert Downey Jr. should find himself firmly on the A-list after this film. Besides the fact that the film made a boatload of money but the film relied completely on his charm and acting ability and he carried it with ease. Iron Man is an upper echelon superhero movie but I'd probably put it near the bottom of that level, definitely below the elite films of the first two Superman, X-Men, and Spiderman films. I'd say it's around Blade level (although I liked Blade better)
Oh, and in case you missed it, here's the after the credits scene.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:22 PM | Permalink |Digg It!