You are currently browsing the daily archive for April 30, 2008.

Sometimes my love of the ridiculous leads me to the sublime. And sometimes it leads me to Men at Work. “WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY EMILIO ESTEVEZ,” I surely shouted. “How could this not be amazing?” That it starred brothers Estevez and Sheen and featured a score by Stewart Copeland (drummer for the Police) only seemed to pave the way for success.

Though released in 1990, the movie has an unmistakable 80s feel. Emilio and Charlie play lovable garbage men who witness the murder of a politician, Rear Window style. Only much creepier. Of course, they don’t realize it was a hit until the dead politician turns up on their garbage route. Hilarity then ensues, with some Weekend at Bernie’s riffing. Well, except for the hilarity. Almost all of the movie misses, and misses badly. Part of the charm of this sort of wacky 80s escapade movie is the irreverence. It would take a whole lot of artfulness to wedge deft wordplay into such a script, so the fact that Estevez fails in that respect isn’t necessarily a knock against him. But where’s the wackiness? Indeed, the movie sometimes feels like it has a decent frame, as if the straight man is delivering his lines, but the comic partner is nowhere around to knock down the jokes.

The only parts of the movie that do work are the zany ones. The increasingly disgusting office pranks, for example. And primarily, Keith David. I link to his imdb profile because he might not be familiar by name, so you might be saying, “Who can it be now?” (like there was any chance I’d make it through this post without a bad reference to the Aussie band) but by face (and especially voice) he is. Arbiter from Halo, for crying out loud! So, yes, Mr. David rocks. And in Men at Work, it seems Emilio Estevez basically said, “OK, go crazy.” And crazy Keith David went. To some degree of mania I’ve never seen. Almost inexplicably, it references the truly amazing Better Off Dead, a point I verified through (also almost inexplicably) another blog post on this movie.

The bad guy, played by John Getz, is one of the lamest bad guys ever. He’s got your typical moronic henchman, but his evil plan is…to continue illegally dumping toxic waste? How nefarious! Mr. Getz plays the villain rather awkwardly. The female lead is Leslie Hope, who doesn’t do much for me, but who popped up a decade later to play Jack Bauer’s wife in 24. So that’s something.

I normally don’t notice these things, much less comment on them, but the homophobia in the movie goes way beyond latent. On multiple occasions, bad guys (or, at least, enemies of the brothers Sheen) end up tied together in sexually suggestive positions. And yes, the fact that they are tied together in sexually suggestive positions is overtly referenced in the movie.

Feel free to skip Men at Work. The laughs are few and far between. If you watch it with a friend, you very well might be men at sleep.

A pretty ridiculous trailer after the jump Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

If we ever recap 1981’s Oscar season, I have a pretty strong suspicion I’ll be railing against the inclusion of Reds in the discussion. Nominated for 12 Oscars, it won three (Best Supporting Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Director). Without having seen many of the other movies nominated or having the potential to be nominated, I suppose I can’t say anything too definitive, but I imagine the only Oscars I could have supported were the nominated performances of Diane Keaton (Best Actress) and Jack Nicholson (Best Supporting Actor). By the way, the last four years Jack’s been nominated for an Oscar? 1988, 1993, 1998, and 2003. Just saying.

Reds is based on the story of John Reed’s life. John Reed was a journalist from the U.S. who was in Russia when the Communists took over. He later wrote Ten Days That Shook The World about the experience. The book is still relatively well-known, and special to me because I somehow still remember seeing it in the University of Maryland library for some high school report I was writing.

The movie, written by Warren Beatty and Trevor Griffiths, is framed by the love story of Reed (Beatty) and Louise Bryant (Keaton), but also makes forays into intellectualism in the U.S. at the time and the Bolshevik Revolution and its immediate effects. Not succinctly either, the sucker clocks in at over three hours. And there’s the ultimate problem of the movie, in my opinion. The range of the movie is epic, and while it might be necessary to tell John Reed’s story, it also hinders enjoyment of the film. The way Reed and Bryant meet is cute (or “meet cute” as I may have learned from watching The Holiday recently (review to come)), but did we really need twenty minutes (or whatever) of Bryant’s ensuing ennui as Reed and his intellectual cronies including Eugene O’Neill (Nicholson) blabbered? And how is Emma Goldman (Maureen Stapleton in an Oscar-winning role) relevant to the story at all? In my mind, her nomination was Ruby Dee-esque. Finally, while the old people recounting stories of Reed and Bryant sometimes served to break things up (and did bring to mind When Harry Meant Sally), but the bits seemed jarring and out of place.

The movie does have much to applaud, especially for those who enjoy an intermission in films they watch. As I mentioned, I thought Nicholson and Keaton were great. And I’m a bit of a Warren Beatty fan. It is also fun to see Gene Hackman show up. Balancing a relatively standard love story with the events of 1917 and their fallout in the U.S.A. and Russia is obviously quite difficult, and the film ably straddles that line often. Beatty (as writer, director, and actor) does an admirable job displaying Reed’s determination in sticking to his convictions even as he becomes disillusioned with the Bolsheviks, and with the Communists in the United States. Especially considering the time when the movie was filmed, Beatty takes in the high road in largely not reducing the Bolsheviks to caricatures, but instead painting them in a relatively honest (historically-speaking) light.

Reds is a decent movie, though not great. While it certainly could have been a little shorter, I’m not sure that would have bumped it up a star for me. There are interesting stories within, but as a whole, Reds fails to congeal into a cohesive movie.

After the jump, one of the most misleading trailers I’ve ever seen: Read the rest of this entry »

April 2008
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
Advertisements