|
|
From some of the Bungled to all you Botched out there…
We bring this good thing to an end this week with Brian holding down the fort in Victoria and Steve joining in by phone from Toronto. It's more of an editorial show than anything as we chat about Charlie… [more]
We Mind if this Mega movie isn’t funny. We Mind big time.
It's a festive atmosphere in Cynic Town this week for no other reason than it's Sunday and we get to talk about movies on the radio. We've got a review of Megamind, some news about Shane Black, Brian musing… [more]
What I Love About Terry Gilliam
If you've known me for a long time, you'd know that I've had a profound appreciation for Terry Gilliam for as long as I've been able to distinguish between directors. For those who've only known me as… [more]
The Warriors (1979)
To understand what I love so much about The Warriors is to understand what I love best about movies, TV shows and comic books. I think I was at my local double feature cinema sometime in the 90s when I… [more]
Waiting on a Friday Night for Superman
It's a bittersweet day as we bid a fond farewell to Friday Night Lights which ended its 5 season run this past week, offering Brian his best possible opportunity to say "I told you so" to Steve. For some… [more]
Top 5 Fridays | David Patrick Kelly roles
I don't know what has so enamored me of him lately, but I've had David Patrick Kelly on the brain. He's kind of an unassuming guy, and hasn't had a very prolific career, but his performances always bear… [more]
Posted by: Steve, on December 1, 2011, at 7:36 pm
Scorsese creates a richly textured, barely fathomable, three dimensional world to compose a profoundly heartfelt elegy to the cinema and the masters that have come before him. And once you’ve let yourself be captivated by the film’s stunning imagery, nestled snugly within the spectacle is a compelling story performed by talented, charismatic actors – Don Logan never once entered my brain for the whole film.
What struck me most is Scorsese’s continuing reverence for the films that have come before him and how they inform the films of today – not by ripping them off, but by warmly suggesting them at the opportune moment. His gift is to remind us that there is an entire world of great films put there to be seen of only we go digging for them. It’s a message I hold dear to my heart as a guiding principle in my approach to the movies.
Posted by: Brian, on September 24, 2011, at 8:17 pm
Hello Internet, Its been a very long time since we last met. I almost forgot how to find you. I can make excuses for my absence, say I was too busy, blame Steve for moving, recount you with the tale of my abduction and imprisonment by radical anti-television anarchists, but truth be told, I was just being lazy. I just never felt like sharing my thoughts and opinions on film and TV anymore. I took some time and just went back to basics, where it was all about the experience and event and not about recapping that event for you. Then a funny thing happened; I watched season one of Mad Men on Netflix, and I liked it.
Those of you who are familiar with Steve and I and our much celebrated but woefully under appreciated radio show (R.I.P) know that we both made statements about Mad Men and how we just didn’t like it. I tried to watch it before but it just never gelled for me. I found it boring and slow and pointless. When you put it up against AMC’s other juggernaut, Breaking Bad, it was a no contest. There is a reason why Bryan Cranston won 3 emmys in a row. Its just that good. Mad Men never had that for me. Until now.
I will admit it, I am a big proponent of Netflix. Yes the selection is not as great as it could be and one day will be. But honestly, you do have access to HUNDREDS of movies that stream instantly to your TV. And the quality is nothing to sneeze at. Just give it time. Now every time I logged in and flicked around trying to find something to watch, Mad Men would be starting at me. It was like it was following me around, “hey, why not try us again? please? we promise you will like us this time” and yet I kept avoiding it. I would rather watch a movie I had already seen then give it a shot. The a funny thing happened. I found out that Jon Hamm is fucking hilarious.
Anyone who has seen Ham host SNL knows that he can hold his own on the sketch show, not an easy task since SNL’s writing mostly sucks (more on that another time) but it wasn’t until his turn in this summer’s funniest movie Bridesmaids and his 15 sec cameo in the live 30 rock that cemented his status as funniest handsome man on TV (sorry Alec Baldwin) . That made me think, maybe Mad Men is actually a comedy, the only thing is they don’t know it.
So with much dread and hesitation I dove back in to season 1 of Mad Men. And after the initial phase of getting accustomed to the show again, I actually quite liked it. Yes the detail is amazing, from the clothes to the furniture to the attitudes towards women. And the acting is top notch, you feel for Peggy, want to have a drink with Don and you want to punch Pete in his annoying little nose. It is a solid show from to bottom. I get it. okay? I get why people get so worked up when you say you don’t like it. Its that kind of show. And I am sorry internet, sorry that I ever doubted your opinions and sorry that I have been away for so long. Now get me a scotch and cigarette and if my wife calls, tell her I am in a meeting okay?
p.s. realizing that the lovely Allison Brie would be making random appearances throughout the season was also a selling point.
Posted by: Steve, on July 25, 2011, at 9:52 pm
Tweetnopsis: #CaptainAmerica immediately legitimizes itself by invoking the exploits of the other WW2 “superhero”: Indiana Jones.”Trinkets in the desert”
Posted by: Steve, on July 20, 2011, at 4:04 pm
As I sat weeping over the new Spider-Man trailer, I had to ask myself this question: What’s the big deal about trailers anyway? Why do I get so giddy about what are essentially commercials put out by giant faceless corporations? And why am I constantly spoiling future moviegoing experiences for the fleeting joy of knowitallism?
What did I come up with? Hope. I think I am drawn to trailer sites to kindle the hope that something great is again on the horizon, the dazzling images and sketchy storyline fuel that conviction that a movie is just around the corner that might just make it onto the short list of the “great” films of our time.
So as I stare at the teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man and wipe away my tears of joy, it’s because I see a unique take on the Spider-Man legend presented in a way I haven’t seen before. And while that is the very definition of “novelty”, I think it’s something with a little more substance – it’s defiance in the face of cinematic mediocrity and that’s cause to be excited.
And now that I’ve rationalised my trailer obsession to my own satisfaction, why don’t you have a look at the teaser for The Amazing Spider-Man and keep your eyes peeled for Denis Leary.
Posted by: Steve, on July 17, 2011, at 1:25 pm
Posted by: Steve, on June 7, 2011, at 12:07 pm
Tweetnopsis: #XMen1stClass: Failed to impress with its revisionism, but I can’t help but admire Nick Hoult’s ability to claw his way back from obscurity.
This is without doubt Matthew Vaughn’s worst film, but I’m willing to give him a pass because this is probably most most sutdio interference he’s had to cope with on a film. Between the Fox people and the Marvel people and Lauren Schuler Donner and Bryan Singer, it would have been the first time he’d really been under someone’s thumb to make a film.
Cameo? More like “Can’t-eo”!
Despite some great cameos, some of which were definitely applause worthy, there was a gaping hole in this film where Stanley Leiber should have been. It’s a fact that he hasn’t been in every single Marvel adaptation, if they’re trying for authenticity and crowd pleasing you have to give homage to Marvel’s chairman emeritus. Excelsior!
The Temple of James McAvoy
There hasn’t been a single performance of McAvoy’s that I haven’t enjoyed, and that includes Gnomeo & Juliet. It was his presence in this film, alongside Fassbender and under the direction of my hero Matthew Vaughn, that guaranteed my presence in the theatre, but his reliance on his fingers at his temple to illustrate the use of his powers seemed like a crutch beneath the likes of such an accomplished actor. I don’t even think the actor portraying the youngest version of himself used it to herald a “telepathic moment”. Truth be told, I also felt that his portrayal of Xavier seemed far too naive for character supposedly so brilliant. You’d have thought that the only role he
played in founding the school was that he owned the property and his only contribution to Cerebro was that he attached it to his head. His idealistic naiveté is should be vindicated somehow rather than being shunned on all sides by the loss of his friend and allies in the state department.
In their own world
I remember when I was a kid I used wonder why it was that Spider-Man never hung out with The Flash or why the Hulk never arm wrestled with Superman. The business-y response of how the heroes couldn’t be neighbors because they were owned by different companies was a lame enough concept to figure out as a kid, not to mention coming face to face with the commerce of imagination – two entities I thought were mutually exclusive up until then. Now I’m seeing it all over again in the movies with Marvel a house divided against itself with different movie studios owning different properties where never the twain shall meet so long as they keep making new movies every 2 years. Not that I’ve been a huge fan of how Marvel’s handled it’s intertextuality lately in terms of the lead-up to The Avengers, but I am fond of the idea that there’s a possibility of Tony Stark having a biscotti with the God of Thunder. Sadly, there’s no chance of that happening between Spider-Man and Wolverine though.
Smallville syndrome
Wasn’t anybody listening to what Doc Brown said about going back in time and doing irreparable harm to the timeline? Smallville did enough of a number on the origins of Superman for me to cringe at the thought of what any other super-heroic revisionism might do to another dynasty. You wanna change the way their costumes look? Fine. You wanna turn Angel from the winged billionaire we barely got to see in X-Men 3 (well done, Ben Foster BTW) into a skanky version of Wasp? I dont think so! You wanna change Moira McTaggert from gifted Scottish researcher into an American CIA agent? Well, that I’m alright with – other than the fact that she already appeared in X-Men 3 as well. All of this retconning will eventually cause the mythology to collapse in on itself, although I’m sure they feel that they can muck about with it as much as they want until they decide to reboot it. Look, if you’re going to tell a story about a bunch of kids with superheroes and not make proper use of the X-Men property, well, you might as well make Misfits. Seriously, are we so bereft of ideas now that we have to jumble up old ones to make them seem new again?
A little light on details
Yeah, that’s right. I might not have had the greatest time, but I could have stood for it to have lasted a little longer. There were so many characters, and each of them had their own story to tell, but I’d say only about 70% of them got told. If you afforded everyone another 2-3 minutes to each of them just to reveal a little of what they were all about, it would have enriched the story and might have gone a long way to connecting together scenes that seemed disjointed and even out of context. I mean, I couldn’t see myself wanting to buy one of their action figures if I didn’t know anything about them. Did the guy with the whirlwinds even have a name? Was he a mute?
Posted by: Steve, on May 28, 2011, at 10:34 am
I have come to what some might call a “crossroads” in my life, I call it something more like “a train wreck”. Having shut down the Film Cynics on the radio and moved all the way across the country, my life has taken on a completely different shape from what it once was when I was able to sit at work and write a post or two a day, or spend my nights in front of a TV set, watching movies or TV shows. As such, my ability to do Film Cynics stuff has been compromised, preventing me from being able to post stuff up as regularly as I used to, not to say that I won’t be posting at all. (I’ve actually been stepping up my game on if you wanna check that out.)
In the meantime though, I’ve been invited to take part in a new venture where I can write in a more limited capacity, but still contribute to a robust discussion about movies, TV and pop-culture. It’s called Man, I Love Films and it’s a website founded by two colleagues of mine who have decided to up their movie blogging to the next level. Dylan, formerly of Blog Cabins and founder of the LAMB, and Kai, formerly of The List and creator of the MILFcast, have put together something really special and I think you should all drop by and check it out. With a veritable rogues’ gallery of contributing writers from all walks of life (even the mid-30′s married father-of-two set) concocting a great marketplace of discussion and ideas about movies.
I hoper you’ll drop by to check it out, and check out my weekly Vault Review column every Saturday, starting with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Posted by: Steve, on May 18, 2011, at 5:59 pm
#Thor:Not only is it a captivating tale about Marvel’s least relatable hero, but red cape or no, it never felt like a comic book adaptation.
 The way The Hives tell it, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. And it would seem that 8 years after the totally under-appreciated Hulk came and went from theatres, the folks at Marvel Studios have yet again delved deep into the subtext of one of their properties for some deeper themes (Then: Emotional repression and self-denial. Now: Arrogance and humility.) and, hired an acclaimed, respected director accustomed to higher-brow fare, (Then: Ang Lee. Now: Kenneth Branagh.) and made it about a superhero who relies more on brute force than his wits. Despite making use of similar ingredients, Thor is an entirely different animal; likely because its themes translate more readily into a narrative involving the occasional donnybrook.
Beyond the expected touch of “class” that Branagh brings to the production, he also makes the unconventional choice of offering some lines to the supporting cast to foster a feeling of depth within the film. Rather than the traditional model of superhero film that only offers up dialogue as a tool to develop the hero or the villain, Branagh offers many of the supporting characters opportunities to speak and act for the sake of elaborating on the world they inhabit. Sif commiserating with Thor’s mother and expressing her condolences over the loss of her son could have easily been left the cutting room floor.
Thor also manages to accomplish the Herculean task of taking the least relatable member of the Avengers and brings him into a world where he could conceivably sit and have a drink with Tony Stark. No small part of that is thanks to one Agent Coulson (Clark Greg as the “Son of Coul”) who is doing an admirable job of jumping from film to film, but besides Nick Fury’s errand boy, Branagh utilizes two tried and true tools of classic science fiction: the gyroscope and the black hole. The device used by the “gods” to cross vast reaches of space? It’s basically a spherical device that spins around really, really fast. Not unlike H.G. Wells’ Time Machine or the “space ship” from Contact. And Thor’s incredible hammer, Mjolnir? Forged from material found deep within a dead star, evoking images of a black hole with gravitational forces capable of bending space-time, not unlike every other Star Trek movie. Making use of these little narrative crutches doesn’t necessarily make any of this “possible”, but in a world with gamma irradiated behemoths and a man with an arc reactor-powered prosthesis, it becomes at least plausible.
Regardless of any of my deeper thoughts on this movie, it was a really good time. There were some genuine laughs, some great geek-out moments including two great cameos, and some fantastic CG to satisfy your early cravings for this summer’s crop of blockbusters.
Question: Did Odin’s horse have eight legs? I only though to check after it was gone. And who was your favourite movie Thor? Chris Hemsworth, Vincent D’Onofrio or Mathew Baker?
Posted by: Steve, on April 29, 2011, at 7:44 pm
#Fast5:A reconstitution of the Fast franchise that incorporates the most universal elements of The Fugitive and Ocean’s 11, and little else.
The main selling point of Fast Five for me was to see Vin Diesel and The Rock face off against each other. Not to see them trade blows, but to banter back and forth in some kind of “tough guy-off”. Unfortunately, because they were trying to leave the profanity at the door to keep their PG rating, i found the one liners lacking. (Odd that they watched the swears per minute for the sake of the kiddies, but paid little attention to the more important stuff like wearing a seat-belt.) Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson does a great job of chanelling Tommy Lee Jones’ Sam Gerard mixed in with a little “Stone Cold” Steve Austin (and maybe even a little Beck too), but I thought it was a shame he innevitably wound up becoming a bit player to the series’ manistays.
While I’ve only ever watched the first film in the series, I could see that they were trying to offer nods to the other installments, especially by parading though some of the past characters. If I knew more about Fast’s “legacy” I could say more on whether they stayed true to their original incarnations, but as character insight and development was pretty much thrown out the window in favour of a straight ahead cars & crime picture, it’s pretty much a non-issue.
They opted for a Brazillian backdrop for this outing, and they managed to exploit every last angle available out of it. I never get tired of footchase scenes across the rooftops of Rio’s slums, although I might be growing weary of the heavy handed use of the Christ the Redeemer statue as a theme for the supposed redemption that I don’t think ever manifested. It seemed like Diesel’s Dom wanted to make up for the things he’d done – sort of – but I don’t think he transformed himself at all. With no transformation, how can he be redeemed?
Those who were seeking riveting performances and a richly adorned script from this flick clearly don’t have firm grasp of the movie industry. This picture was meant to deliver a very specific menu of visceral experiences, and at that, Fast Five clearly succeeded. Attractive women abound, engines roar like horny wolverines, and guns lock & load straight out of Call of Duty. It’ll never make my shelf, but i can certainly see myself recommending it to a group of people looking for something to eat popcorn to.
Posted by: Steve, on April 4, 2011, at 8:08 am
 After having, in no uncertain terms, the gauntlet thrown down for me, I was very tempters to approach my Sucker Punch review as more of a rebuke. The more I considered the approach through, the more I figured that I would adopt too much of a “methinks he dost protest too much” stance and lose everyone in the shuffle. Instead, I’m going to do my best to judge the film on it’s merits, rather than trying to measure it up against the list of flaws my esteemed colleagues have lined up against it.
Zack Snyder has paid enough dues to have grown past the term newcomer, but it would seem that his style has yet to come into focus. That his work has consisted primarily of either adaptations or reinterpretations of other people’s work might account for this, or perhaps it’s that his films fall into such a diverse assortment of genres. Despite the depth of his body of work though, his films all share some common elements: visceral action scenes, visually striking cinematography, a heavy reliance on CG animation, and strong female characters (even if they might still wind up overshadowed by their male counterparts). In Sucker Punch, Zack seems to have decided to stop choking back on the throttle and let his creative juices do more than flow, they surge. While there might be some who would see this as a kind of 300 for the ladies, or perhaps Kill Bill meets Inception as some have been describing it, I think it can most aptly be described as Zack Snyder’s Heavy Metal, and it is a far more worthy successor to the franchise than the all but obliviated Heavy Metal 2000.
As a fragmented tale, describing what Sucker Punch is about would depend on which part of the film you’re watching at any given moment. Beneath the layers and layers of drug-induced psychosis 20 year old orphan Baby Doll is suffering from, she is attempting to escape the mental hospital her wicked stepfather committed her to. This exodus takes many forms, as Baby Doll engages in mortal combat with iron samurai golems, steam-powered Nazi zombies, and fire breathing dragons, while she and her companions collect the tools to make good their escape.
Continue reading: “Sucker Punch – Pure Decadent Eye Syrup” →
|
|
