Well, actually I went to the theater and saw this.
I had no plans on talking about this movie, but on a whim I decided to hop on the keyboard and see what comes out. I don't even know if I'll complete this.
By now, we all know the story leading up to "This Is It." So what the "movie" actually is, is just what they said it was. It's rehearsal footage, with some short interviews and back-backstage stuff sprinkled in. You get to see when the crew showed him things they had been working on for the show, how in awe the dancers were at the prospect of working with Michael, things like that.
For some, that won't be enough. There is no narrative holding things together. It's more like a barebones concert film, and the only audience was the dancers and crew. Someone's probably already complained that there's no footage of the paramedics trying to revive him.
For me, it was bittersweet, but still fantastic.
Bittersweet, because it's a reminder of what might have been. I don't want to over dramatize this thing, but that's what it was. And it would have been a great show. Michael going at 70% speed (he was saving himself for the shows) was better than any of the headliners out today. He still had all the moves, he could still sing all of the songs. As everyone who was around him at the time of his death has already said, he was in great shape and ready to go.
But while it was great to see him perform (even if it was a dress rehearsal), we also got to see sides to him that we never got to see.
We've all heard him speak in interviews, and most of us probably imagine that he's this soft-spoken dude all the time, who doesn't speak up, but when it comes to his shows, the man is in total control. Of everything. If he doesn't like something, he's cutting you off and that's the end of discussion. And he has no problem repeatedly stopping something until it's to his liking. But he's polite about it, and he ended everything with some kind of loving statement. It's like he's saying, "It's nothing personal and we're still cool...but you're not about to f*** up my show."
And there's also some glimpses into how he interacts with people. Not really on a personal level, because it's not like they're just lounging around. They're putting together the biggest concert of his career. But that doesn't mean that there can't be some jokes and some lighthearted moments.
There were a couple here and there, and it was good to see them, because we forget sometimes that Michael Jackson was a real person, because we only ever see him as this larger-than-life figure on stage, or as this weird guy, hiding behind masks, with post-its all over his face. We don't ever just see him sharing a joke with another human being. Well, we get a couple of those moments here.
But if you're not into Michael Jackson's music, then there's no point in even putting your money down to see it (which is a decision that I'm sure you made long before this was released). Like I said, there's no storyline running through this, because it's not a true documentary. It's just footage that was taken to document the process. And everyone else wasn't waiting for a review before they decided whether or not they should see it. It's Michael Jackson in concert. And for his fans, that's more than enough.
Which means, I really wasted my time watching this.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
I Can't Believe I Rented It: King Kong
I was watching "King Kong" and I was wondering how many people didn't like it. Maybe it's the fact that they knew how it was going to end. After all, who doesn't know that Kong is gonna die? And then I thought, "Only idiots think that way. There hasn't been a brand new ending to anything outside of Christopher Nolan purposely telling the story backwards."
Some people didn't like "Titanic" because they knew how it was going to end. Well, sometimes, that isn't the point. Every movie can't have a twist ending. Sorry that M. Night Shamalyan can't write everything, but Hollywood isn't in the business of purposely offending their customers.
They might not think that the movie's realistic, but that's the point of imagination. Most of the stuff we imagine isn't real, like when you imagine sleeping with your boss's hot wife on his desk, while he's tied up in the corner. We all know that in real life, the only sexual pleasure you're getting out of this scenario is being sodomized by your own leg. If you were so concerned about realism, you wouldn't have turned on a movie about a giant ape getting shot off the Empire State Building.
I mean, come on. When you're dealing with giant apes that are worshiped by a lost civilization of savages, you just gotta let some shit slide. It's not like people have a frame of reference for dealing with 25-foot tall gorillas to make things "just like real life." And the ironic part is, no one ever complains when they see dinosaurs in movies. At least someone on Earth can say, "Hey, I've seen an ape before." You can go to the zoo and see one that's eight feet tall, but where can you go to see a dinosaur? It's been 70 million years since anyone's seen one, but how do we know we're doing those right?
When Jurassic Park came out, everyone was in awe of how real they looked, but how the fuck would we know how real they looked? For all we know, their mating habits included a hip-thrusting sex dance and they always washed their hands before chasing down a tasty brachiosaur.
And maybe they weren't able to buy into the fact that a white lady is sympathizing with a giant ape.
Maybe it's because I read shit, I understand that while it's a stretch, a white lady could try to get people not to shoot the giant monkey. After all, he did save her from the dinosaurs that were so fake, right? Isn't it within reason to think that she'd realize that Kong wasn't a bloodthirsty killer some of the time? The least she could do is try to keep him from getting shot.
Now, if she gave it up to Kong, that might be a bit of a stretch. I'd walk out on a movie like that, too, mainly because bestiality is only acceptable on the internet.
Not only that, some people like to talk about the supposed racial undertones of the movie, and when the original came out, you might have been onto something, seeing as how it came out in 1933. Even though white people had been around black people for 500 years to that point and hadn't seen any of us swing through the trees or communicate with jungle creatures, it was still widely believed that we were just like monkeys. White people back then were just really stupid.
But in 2005, if you sought out racial undertones, you were either J. Anthony Brown or someone else who just isn't funny. Okay, so the monkey caught hell chasing after a white woman, and wound up chains. How can I not see the symbolism, right? Probably because I don't identify with the silverback experience. Sure, I like bananas, but then so do white people. I don't eat them because of my genetic predisposition; I eat them because they taste good.
The irony is that even though people think that the point of the movie is to tell black men to stay away from white women (as evidenced by the beating Kong took all through the movie), the white woman stood still by her man. Since "King Kong," in actuality, is a thinly veiled exposition on the evils of race-mixing, I should still get with a white woman, because I know she'll be loyal, even in the face of machine gun fire from bi-planes. The movie told me so.
So putting all of that aside, in my mind, there's no real reason not to like "King Kong," other than not having the attention span for movies that don't have a joke or an explosion every ten minutes. Anyone who's ever had a dog can relate to this movie, without the dog having to carry them up the side of the building. It's got all kinds of characters who feel like real people, lots of action, and a sad ending that makes sense, because there was no other way that it could go down. Sure, there were no gay comedic foils or potential action figures (but Lord knows, they tried anyway), but it was a remake that actually made sense to make, and actually exceeded the original.
But that's not hard to do, considering that it relied on stop-motion special effects.
Some people didn't like "Titanic" because they knew how it was going to end. Well, sometimes, that isn't the point. Every movie can't have a twist ending. Sorry that M. Night Shamalyan can't write everything, but Hollywood isn't in the business of purposely offending their customers.
They might not think that the movie's realistic, but that's the point of imagination. Most of the stuff we imagine isn't real, like when you imagine sleeping with your boss's hot wife on his desk, while he's tied up in the corner. We all know that in real life, the only sexual pleasure you're getting out of this scenario is being sodomized by your own leg. If you were so concerned about realism, you wouldn't have turned on a movie about a giant ape getting shot off the Empire State Building.
I mean, come on. When you're dealing with giant apes that are worshiped by a lost civilization of savages, you just gotta let some shit slide. It's not like people have a frame of reference for dealing with 25-foot tall gorillas to make things "just like real life." And the ironic part is, no one ever complains when they see dinosaurs in movies. At least someone on Earth can say, "Hey, I've seen an ape before." You can go to the zoo and see one that's eight feet tall, but where can you go to see a dinosaur? It's been 70 million years since anyone's seen one, but how do we know we're doing those right?
When Jurassic Park came out, everyone was in awe of how real they looked, but how the fuck would we know how real they looked? For all we know, their mating habits included a hip-thrusting sex dance and they always washed their hands before chasing down a tasty brachiosaur.
And maybe they weren't able to buy into the fact that a white lady is sympathizing with a giant ape.
Maybe it's because I read shit, I understand that while it's a stretch, a white lady could try to get people not to shoot the giant monkey. After all, he did save her from the dinosaurs that were so fake, right? Isn't it within reason to think that she'd realize that Kong wasn't a bloodthirsty killer some of the time? The least she could do is try to keep him from getting shot.
Now, if she gave it up to Kong, that might be a bit of a stretch. I'd walk out on a movie like that, too, mainly because bestiality is only acceptable on the internet.
Not only that, some people like to talk about the supposed racial undertones of the movie, and when the original came out, you might have been onto something, seeing as how it came out in 1933. Even though white people had been around black people for 500 years to that point and hadn't seen any of us swing through the trees or communicate with jungle creatures, it was still widely believed that we were just like monkeys. White people back then were just really stupid.
But in 2005, if you sought out racial undertones, you were either J. Anthony Brown or someone else who just isn't funny. Okay, so the monkey caught hell chasing after a white woman, and wound up chains. How can I not see the symbolism, right? Probably because I don't identify with the silverback experience. Sure, I like bananas, but then so do white people. I don't eat them because of my genetic predisposition; I eat them because they taste good.
The irony is that even though people think that the point of the movie is to tell black men to stay away from white women (as evidenced by the beating Kong took all through the movie), the white woman stood still by her man. Since "King Kong," in actuality, is a thinly veiled exposition on the evils of race-mixing, I should still get with a white woman, because I know she'll be loyal, even in the face of machine gun fire from bi-planes. The movie told me so.
So putting all of that aside, in my mind, there's no real reason not to like "King Kong," other than not having the attention span for movies that don't have a joke or an explosion every ten minutes. Anyone who's ever had a dog can relate to this movie, without the dog having to carry them up the side of the building. It's got all kinds of characters who feel like real people, lots of action, and a sad ending that makes sense, because there was no other way that it could go down. Sure, there were no gay comedic foils or potential action figures (but Lord knows, they tried anyway), but it was a remake that actually made sense to make, and actually exceeded the original.
But that's not hard to do, considering that it relied on stop-motion special effects.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
A Whedon-free Buffy movie
In 1992, there was a movie called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," that had all of the cultural impact of Crystal Pepsi or "The New Adventures of He-Man." More people bought a Turbo-Grafx 16 than people went to go see this movie. And despite my friend Steve insisting that I watch it, I refused because it was called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." I wasn't alone in my assessment.
In 1997, Joss Whedon gave Sarah Michelle Gellar her only taste of career relevance by casting her as Buffy in his TV remake of one of the most widely panned movies ever. The show became a cult hit, lasting seven seasons, and recently publishing a comic book-based eighth season (titled "Buffy: Season 8), also written by series creator Joss Whedon. I have watched a grand total of one episode of this show, but the one I saw drilled it home that this is actually a show that's worth a damn, unlike the recently cancelled "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."
Today, it was revealed that Fran Rubel Kuzui, the director of the original film (a fact that I never cared to know until this morning), is working on a new Buffy movie, one that's not connected to either the movie or the show. Kuzui apparently believes that it's her right to fail a second time just because she owns the character. She plans to make the movie "darker" in tone, because that's what all of these types of films plan to do in the wake of "The Dark Knight." They should just give this theme an official name, like "Batman-chic."
Now, that bit of news should be enough to piss off all of the Buffy fans around the world, because Buffy fans love them some Buffy show. They also love them some Spike, some Xander, some Angel, and some Willow. None of them will appear in the new film, much like Joss Whedon won't be involved. According to AICN, they're not saying he can't be involved, but they are saying that he'd have to "audition like everyone else."
The only reason why anyone knows "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" at all, is because Joss Whedon knows how to write shit that's worth a damn. It certainly wasn't the creative abilities of Fran Rubel Kuzui, who was only an executive producer on the series and series spinoff, "Angel." All that means is that she was collecting a check while someone else did the heavy lifting. Hell, Reginald Hudlin was an "executive producer" on "The Boondocks," and not only did he have no involvement with the show after Fox passed on it, but they made two episodes completely disrespecting him. There isn't anyone outside of Kuzui's personal circle of friends and family who can name anything she's ever worked on without consulting IMDB first.
And for the record, she produced "Orgazmo." First "Buffy," then "Orgazmo." If I had a track record like that, I'd be drying trays in the back of Burger King for a living.
Fans are already outraged. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...
In 1997, Joss Whedon gave Sarah Michelle Gellar her only taste of career relevance by casting her as Buffy in his TV remake of one of the most widely panned movies ever. The show became a cult hit, lasting seven seasons, and recently publishing a comic book-based eighth season (titled "Buffy: Season 8), also written by series creator Joss Whedon. I have watched a grand total of one episode of this show, but the one I saw drilled it home that this is actually a show that's worth a damn, unlike the recently cancelled "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles."
Today, it was revealed that Fran Rubel Kuzui, the director of the original film (a fact that I never cared to know until this morning), is working on a new Buffy movie, one that's not connected to either the movie or the show. Kuzui apparently believes that it's her right to fail a second time just because she owns the character. She plans to make the movie "darker" in tone, because that's what all of these types of films plan to do in the wake of "The Dark Knight." They should just give this theme an official name, like "Batman-chic."
Now, that bit of news should be enough to piss off all of the Buffy fans around the world, because Buffy fans love them some Buffy show. They also love them some Spike, some Xander, some Angel, and some Willow. None of them will appear in the new film, much like Joss Whedon won't be involved. According to AICN, they're not saying he can't be involved, but they are saying that he'd have to "audition like everyone else."
The only reason why anyone knows "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" at all, is because Joss Whedon knows how to write shit that's worth a damn. It certainly wasn't the creative abilities of Fran Rubel Kuzui, who was only an executive producer on the series and series spinoff, "Angel." All that means is that she was collecting a check while someone else did the heavy lifting. Hell, Reginald Hudlin was an "executive producer" on "The Boondocks," and not only did he have no involvement with the show after Fox passed on it, but they made two episodes completely disrespecting him. There isn't anyone outside of Kuzui's personal circle of friends and family who can name anything she's ever worked on without consulting IMDB first.
And for the record, she produced "Orgazmo." First "Buffy," then "Orgazmo." If I had a track record like that, I'd be drying trays in the back of Burger King for a living.
Fans are already outraged. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)