I just found out that the spin off movie MIB: International is now on video. I have to say; I never was looking forward to that film. Go figure. I never was looking forward to the other MIB films. But once I saw the 1st one, and caught the tail of end of Men In Black II, the chemistry between TLJ and Will Smith does become something you don't mind chumming up to. But MIB International, I'm sure has a good chemistry between the cast, but I seriously need more than that to convince me to pay somewhere between $5 for a matinee (if one were so lucky) w/o popcorn and soda to $30 for a Saturday evening showing with popcorn and soda. Good chemistry and smooth pacing as well as a sense of purpose all make the difference. For instance -- THE FAREWELL is a movie that looks extremely interesting. Sure, it's probably not beneficial to see it on the big screen the same way watching aliens destroy the earth would be. It'd be nice if Hollywood would quit typecasting movies that don't do well in theaters as failures. But then again, it'd be nice if the audience would quit pursuing superficial thrills so that movies like TRANSFORMERS PART VII would not even be a consideration and that movies like THE FAREWELL would have a greater chance at success.
Anyway.
MIB I'm sure would have done a lot better in theaters had it not been a spinoff of a film series that had arguably already had an overly full day in the sun. At some point, it gets to "ok, we've been there, done that". Someone was comparing the fact that there was a female in the mix to the Ghostbusters reboot saying that it made sense in the context of Men In Black in a way that it ddin't in Ghostbusters. I disagree. Ghostbusters could have been a great film had it not been so haphazardly written and executed. It had nothing to do with the gender of the actors. It was the choice of actors he went with and the overall sloppiness of the writing as well as the extremely light as a feather script. The original GB didn't have a very logical script, but the way it was executed, it's almost like there was more going on than you could really put your finger on. The script for GB'16 could have used a bit more depth or a bit more editing. The film was over 2 hours long. There were lots of scenes filmed during production of GB'84 that if included would have slowed the film down to a sluggish crawl. GB'84 is one of the snappiest peppiest films I've ever had the chance to see. Possible contenders go to LIAR LIAR (1997) and BATMAN (1989). There's probably others that I'm not thinking of at the moment because that's not where my mind is most at right now and I don't want to spend all evening typing this. Oh, just thought of one --- THE GODFATHER (1972). That film definitely had its own world. I tried watching it during the daytime and was bored to death. Watching it at night with the lights off made a HUGE difference. It really immerses you in the hearts and minds of the characters. It's a crude analogy of democracy that resonated all too well with a lot of people at that time, but people take it too far by declaring Don Corleone as some kind of role model or respectable citizen. I can truly understand the beaten & disfigured girl's father pleading to his mafia leader relative for justice after the courts failed him, but what about those that aren't related to The Godfather? I'm not Italian. I'm certainly not related to any crime boss to my knowledge. And even if I were, it's still not up to me what kind of justice my enemies face. There's a reason they're called crime bosses. They commit crime and make money off of it. It's a very wide network of family members and associates who operate for the mere sake of their own selves. That's why I say THE GODFATHER (the 1st one, the 2nd one is all over the place and leads nowhere that I can tell) immerses you in its own world. It's not based on a true story, nor is it a realistic portrait of the mafia, nor is it supposed to be. The mafia is a complicated network that would take mutliple days of film footage to accurately portray. THE GODFATHER is about a man's re-assessment of his family and his cultural roots. At least that's what I remember of it. The gang war aspect of it was intriguing and acted as a catalyst for some of the more somber moments.
I also think THE EXORCIST is a one of a kind cinematic experience that was lightyears ahead of its time in terms of making the best use of sight and sound as it pertains to commercial art. I used to harp on the Director's Cut. But the more I think about it, after having read the book before seeing the movie & the first time seeing the movie being so disappointed by the relatively drab way it was presented, I have realized that much of the story was not really coherently expressed in the movie. In the movie, the possessed girl has been seeing a doctor due to abnormal behavior. You don't know this untiil she asks her mother "What's wrong with me?" after she gets tucked in to bed. Her mother, whispering, says "It's just like the doctor said. It's nerves." What doctor? This doctor eventually does get some screen time and the search for answers regarding her manic destructive behavior gets its due, but the timeline is really not explained. And what was that about the rats in the attic? That was never explained. In the book it was explained so I never wondered about it having already read the book. In the book, there was a passage where the mother was researching cases of demonic possession and the sound of animals clawing their way around was one of many of the ongoing ocurrances that the household was experiencing that indicated the presence of a demon making its way into the body of its host. When I read that, my hair stood up on end as I was like "If she'd only known..." But of course, how could she have known? Even the local priest had failed to meet a single one of his colleagues (or presumably anyone else) that had performed an exorcism.
Anyway...............hmm. Yeah. So that's my updated 2 cents on movies today.
No comments:
Post a Comment