Viewed: Theater

Yeah, I know it’s been out for several weeks. I actually saw it about two weeks ago, but I’ve just now gotten around to writing something about it.

I was hesitant to go see it at first, because the trailer made it look like a silly romp. I’m not really interested in a silly zombie holocaust. But a friend, whose movie opinion I trust and tend to agree with, said it was good and funny, but not silly.

It’s only been in the last few years that I’ve gotten an interest in zombie movies, and I’m not sure why. The only zombie movie I remember seeing in the theater was Return of the Living Dead in 1985. The next zombie movie I saw was 28 Days Later, on DVD. (I know, you can argue all you want, but I still call 28DL a “zombie” movie.)

Then I saw I Am Legend, (again, I know it’s not a true “zombie” movie), and something about the zombie apocalypse genre snagged my interest. Since then, I’ve watched about half a dozen other zombie flicks (including the original, black-and-white Night of the Living Dead), and I’ve even bought a couple, including the recent Dawn of the Dead remake.

But the trailer for Zombieland hinted at silliness like I saw in Planet Terror — stupid silliness that I didn’t find the least bit funny. My friend assured me that this movie was not silly like Tarantino’s goof-ball project, so I decided to give it a try. My first theater zombie experience since 1985.

Much to my happiness, I found this movie good. It’s funny, but not silly. It’s zombies eating people, but not gore just to gross the viewer out.

I love the survivor characters and actors. The story is decent and well enough thought out that I wasn’t jolted by dumb plot holes. (There was only one spot/action that was dumb enough to irk me, but I got over it and let it slide quickly.) I like the way Columbus’ rules for surviving in Zombieland were integrated into the story, through both dialog and visual effects.

And the cameo role: brilliant. Since seeing the movie, I’ve read that this actor wasn’t the first chosen for the role, but it worked out so well that I just can’t imagine anyone else pulling it off like he did. And it completely got me — I really didn’t see it coming.

After going to see this film, I emailed my brother to get his opinion on whether I should see it or not. He constantly tells me that I should check with him before going to watch a movie. He claims to know what’s best for me at the theater. I didn’t tell him that I had already seen it, and he said that I would probably like it. So he was right this time. <golf clap>

Bullgrit

I just bought the Watchmen DVD (widescreen edition). I love this movie, and I can’t wait to get a chance to watch it again.

Looking at the DVD cover, front and back, I see that whoever wrote the blurb material apparently didn’t bother watching the movie. This kind of sloppy marketing work is pathetic, especially for a blockbuster hit like this.

The front cover blurb says, “WHO WILL SAVE US NOW?” Huh? That doesn’t really make sense for this movie.

Then on the back, there’s this description of the movie:

Someone’s killing our super heroes. The year is 1985 and super heroes have banded together to respond to the murder of one of their own. They soon uncover a sinister plot that puts all humanity in grave danger. The super heroes fight to stop the impending doom, only to find themselves a target for annihilation. But if our super heroes are gone, who will save us?

Aha. The front blurb is just taken from this back blurb, which also doesn’t make sense. Whoever wrote this copy didn’t bother to watch the movie, and apparently didn’t even bother to get someone who had seen it to explain the general premise to him or her. I hate when a marketing writer does crap like this.

This kind of writing shows a complete lack of interest and responsibility, and it pretty much insults the movie’s fans and potential purchasers. Either the copywriter thinks the movie isn’t worth the effort to get the blurb at least relevant, or he/she thinks anyone checking the packaging before renting/purchasing isn’t worth the effort to give accurate information.

For those who don’t know anything about the movie, it’s useless at best, and misleading at worst. It’s written like a horoscope; it’s vague, but sort of sounds like a general plot for the genre.

“Someone’s killing our super heroes”? One guy is murdered. (I won’t even bother quibbling over the fact that only one of all the heroes in the movie is actually super, and he isn’t the one murdered.)

“Super heroes have banded together to respond to the murder”? Only one of the living heroes “responds” to the killing in any way more than just speaking of it.

“A sinister plot that puts all humanity in grave danger”? The grave danger is the general threat of nuclear war between the US and the USSR — this was the “grave danger” that we all lived through in 1985.

“The super heroes fight to stop the impending doom”? No they don’t. The doom is decidedly over by the time the heroes learn of it.

“Find themselves a target for annihilation”? Oh come on. This might arguably describe just one guy.

“But if our super heroes are gone, who will save us?” Geez. Maybe the same someones who’ve been saving us over the past several years since the “super heroes” retired? Only one of the characters has been active as any kind of “hero” when the movie started.

There is a big plot to this movie, and the central characters are sort-of super heroes (they call themselves “costumed adventurers”), but the description on the box is so unrelated to the actual story as to be false advertising. Here, let me try:

The murder of a costumed adventurer brings his old compatriots together again. The year is 1985, and the United States and the Soviet Union are reaching a boiling point for a global nuclear war. The reuniting members of the costumed hero group known as the Watchmen uncover a plot connecting their friend’s death and the threat of world annihilation.

There, I just wrote a more relevant and accurate description for the movie with just few minutes of thought. All it took beyond these few minutes is 2 hours to actually watch the movie. Is that too much to ask a marketing writer?

Bullgrit

Viewed: Theater

My friends asked me if I was going to see Transformers 2, and I said, “No, Hollywood has struck out with me.”

Hollywood had what should have been three easy slam dunks for me this year: Wolverine, Terminator: Salvation, and Star Trek. But they completely failed to entertain me; they bored me. Me, a member of their core geek demographic. So I decided to not bother with anymore Hollywood in the theater this year.

But then later in our conversation, I mentioned that my family was going to see UP this weekend. “I thought you weren’t going to anymore movies?” They said.

PIXAR is not Hollywood. PIXAR has never made a bad movie. I’d go see a PIXAR movie even if they made a movie about talking cars or the life of a bug. PIXAR is exempt from my theater boycott.

So, all the Grits went to see UP Sunday afternoon. This was Calfgrit4’s first movie theater experience, and Calfgrit8’s first in at least two years (he didn’t like it when he was younger). I’m happy to announce that all Grits seemed to thoroughly enjoy this show.

It’s a real tear-jerker in places, completely silly in other places, and totally entertaining throughout. Frankly, I’m kind of surprised I liked it as much as I did. It’s a ridiculous romp, but it was up front and self-admittedly a ridiculous romp. It didn’t wrap itself in a cloak of realism or believability. There was nothing serious about this movie other than some of the emotions it pulled out of the audience.

In the beginning of the movie, there’s a series of scenes with no dialog at all, and Calfgrit4 asked, “Is this a commercial? Is the movie going to start soon?” These scenes laid the emotional groundwork for the old man character, and made me want to hold Cowgrit’s hand.

Later in the movie, both Calvesgrit were laughing out loud. The theater was filled to near capacity with whole families, and all the kids (and many adults) were laughing fully out loud through much of the show.

After the movie, during our walk through the parking lot back to our van, our boys were repeating lines and scenes from the movie, and laughing all over again. It does a parent’s heart good to see their kids so filled with humor and joy.

Bullgrit

Viewed: Theater

I said I wasn’t going to bother seeing this movie. But my friends all told me it was good. Really good. Even outside my circle of friends, every review and mention I’ve read or heard about this movie said it was great. Even fantastic.

So, I went to see it. I shouldn’t have. I hate it. I should have trusted my own personal gut instinct.

I’ll give props to the idea of using a time travel plot creating a paradox to explain the “reboot” of the series. That concept is a good way to avoid rehashing the series, and lets writers not worry about matching everything to the known Star Trek history of the future.

But every other plot device and piece of plot logic just utterly fails for me. I’ve mentioned in other recent reviews how plot holes and logic failings hurt my enjoyment of a movie, especially when those failings are the core drivers of the story. Well, Star Trek’s foundation is built on these kinds of not-thought-through problems.

One such core plot piece in this movie is that Kirk goes from cadet non grata to permanent captain of the Star Fleet flagship in one freakin’ day. One day! Apparently, being overly cocky gets Star Fleet cadets promoted over all other experienced officers, and awarded the prestigious flag captain’s seat above all other senior commanders.

And there’s lots of other pieces of twisted, ridiculous plot logic that the movie plot relies on. For instance, red matter is so powerful that a single drop can create a black hole, yet a small, one-man science ship carries a 5-foot diameter sphere of the stuff. A Romulan mining ship has greater firepower than a Federation warship. (Yes, the mining ship was from about 150 years in the future, but still it’s a mining ship.) A star can go supernova with no warning. A black hole close enough that you can see it huge in the sky isn’t close enough to harm you.

And what the hell is with all the bright back lights and lens flares? Damn but that got annoying.

About halfway through this movie, I considered getting up and walking out. I just couldn’t find anything to like in this show. But, unfortunately, I was sitting in the middle of the row, with 3-6 people between me and either aisle. So I continued to sit there and subject myself to further brain damage.

This is the third craptacular movie I’ve seen in the theater this year. All three franchises should have been slam dunks for Hollywood to please me, but all three have completely failed for me. But then, with all the rave reviews this new Star Trek movie has received by everyone but me, maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m far too hard to please.

But my peers have also panned Wolverine and Terminator. This is the only one of the three that I am the odd reviewer. <shrug> I now, officially, give up on modern Hollywood — the writers just don’t think their shit through.

Bullgrit