No comments

Ghostbusters 2016

  By

Before I begin, I would like to address a certain and potentially obvious issue:  A couple of weeks back, I made a post detailing the reasons why I wouldn’t support the new Ghostbusters movie.  Given the amount of information that I had at the time, I felt my conclusion was justified, and I still do.  However, when the reviews started coming out on Sunday and not all of them being totally negative, I decided to give the movie a chance.  I guess that would make me sound a little hypocritical, and you probably wouldn’t be wrong for thinking that, but I’m in the business of covering movies and movie news, so not reviewing Ghostbusters 2016 wasn’t particularly an option.  I just want you to bear that in mind while reading this review.  Thank you.

Released: July 2016

Director: Paul Feig

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 116 Minutes

Composer: Theodore Shapiro

Distributor: Sony Entertainment/Columbia Pictures

Cast:
Melissa McCarthy: Abby Yates
Kristen Wiig: Erin Gilbert
Kate McKinnon: Jillian Holtzmann
Leslie Jones: Patty Tolan
Chris Hemsworth: Kevin The Intern
Andy Garcia: Mayor Bradley
Neil Casey: Rowan North

The idea of a 3rd live-action Ghostbusters film has been floating around since the second film was released.  There have been multiple stories involving the ‘Busters going to Hell or an alternate dimension.  One had them passing the torch to a new generation, and one involved an all-female crew.  This last one is the one that got made.  However, instead of a full-blown sequel, we ended up with a reboot.  The idea of an all-female crew shouldn’t have been as controversial as it was.  Considering that Bill Murray was off-and-on again about another film, the whole idea was up in the air.  When Harold Ramis died a couple of years back, any plans for a 3rd film went up in smoke.  So, Sony brought in director Paul Feig to helm a new Ghostbusters film.  Having had the opportunity to see the new movie, how does it stack up?  Does it really deserve all the hate that it’s getting?  Let’s find out, shall we?

The film opens as a tourist guide is taking tourists around what appears to be a haunted house, only to be revealed as a sham on his part.  After the tourists leave, the guide learns that the house really is haunted.  As a result, one of the owners of the mansion call upon Dr. Erin Gilbert to investigate.  Initially refusing, she realizes that he’s telling the truth.  She finds her former colleague, Abby Yates and HER assistant, Jillian Holtzmann.  Together they investigate the house and after encountering their first ghost, they decide to start up an investigation business to locate and capture ghosts.  Recruiting a local Metro guard, Patty and a dimwit receptionist, Kevin, they begin to investigate strange paranormal activities cropping up in the city.  Sounds awfully like the setup for the original movie, doesn’t it?  The story is pretty much a rehash of the original Ghostbusters.  It doesn’t really tread any new ground, and it just feels like the movie is playing it safe.

I’m going to come right out and say it:  The marketing campaign for Ghostbusters has been nothing short of disastrous.  From the awful first trailer to the horrendous new theme song, everything seemed to scream, “trainwreck.”  It pleases me to inform you that the new movie is not the disaster that everybody has been predicting.  Yes, there are people that really don’t like it, and there are people who think it’s merely OK.  Reviewing a comedy is a hard thing to do, because humor is entirely subjective.  What one person finds funny, another might not.  Everybody has their own things that they find funny.  The new Ghostbusters is surprisingly, and genuinely, funny at times.  It’s funny because the cast works.  The chemistry between the main four character is legitimate.  Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones all do a fantastic job, although I tend to like Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon a little bit more than the other two.  Kate McKinnon’s character is kind of a cartoon, and she’s clearly having fun with it.  Her character, Holtzmann, is the engineer, so she designs the weapons and the proton packs.  Leslie Jones play Patty, the street-wise Metro guard.  She’s loud and she’s hilarious.  A lot of the jokes that didn’t seem to land in the trailers, actually land pretty well in the final film.  Why?  Context.  Timing and context are the two most important things in comedy.  Without either of those, you’re left scratching your head.  That’s not to say that all the jokes are good, some really are not and just don’t work.

Chris Hemsworth plays the hunky and clearly dimwitted receptionist, Kevin.  Look, I will admit that Chris Hemsworth is really funny at times here.  He’s clearly having fun at his own expense and he’s got the charisma to do it.  However, the joke tends to go on a little too long, and it becomes tedious.  There are a lot of situations in the film where that is the case.  When the joke lands, you don’t want to dwell on it.  Just let it pass.  That’s one of the main issues I have with the movie.  The writing is all over the place.  The lack of consistency is jarring.  A lot of the time, the humor works, it’s just when it doesn’t, you KNOW it doesn’t.  It ends up being awkward.

The stuff that works in the movie really does work.  The ghost busting sequences are absolutely phenomenal.  I loved those.  The visual effects are surprisingly not bad.  Again, context is important.  Through the course of the film, the story takes it usual turns, and the ‘Busters end up having to try and save the world.  The battle sequences with the ghosts towards the end of the film is nothing short of spectacular.  There are some new things in this movie that I found to be really cool.  Each Ghost Buster has her own proton pack yes, but each one also gets a smaller “side-arm” to go along with the main weapon.  One’s a shotgun, another’s a shredder, and one is power glove.  It’s all really cool.  The one I like the best is the whip that Holtzmann’s character wields.  I thought that was totally awesome.  There’s some really good action here and it’s big, as it should be.  It’s very thrilling.  There are parts of the film that feel like Ghostbusters.  That’s a good thing.

Unfortunately, there are a number of things that really bring the movie down.  For one, the whole movie is very self-aware.  What made the original film work was that it played the whole thing straight.  The chemistry of the actors and their personalities are what made the movie funny.  There are times when ths movie grinds to a halt and says, “Hey look at me, I’m referencing the original movie!”  There are a lot of situations in the movie like that.  Another thing that drags the movie down are the cameos.  We have cameos from not only the three surviving Ghost Busters from the original film, we also have cameos from the old receptionist and Sigourney Weaver as well.  So, we have Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Dan Aykroyd, Annie Potts, and Sigourney Weaver.  These cameos don’t really do anything for the movie except slow it down, and honestly, they’re not that good.  Bill Murray’s cameo is the worst offender.  Ghostbusters would have been better served if it had not had those cameos.  The pacing would have certainly improved.  Also, there is the fact that all the men in the movie are portrayed as idiots and/or dirtbags.  Gee, thanks Mr. Feig.

There is also the issue of the new theme song from Fallout Boy and Missy Elliott.  Who the hell thought that Fallout Boy was a good idea?  I understand that they wanted to try something new with the theme.  If that was the case, they could’ve talked to Ray Parker, Jr. about helping them out a bit.  To be fair, some elements of his song were used, properly of course, but that new main theme is disgraceful.  So…is the new Ghostbusters movie a complete disaster?  No.  Hell no.  I think there’s quite a bit here to like.  The cast is fantastic, especially the main four ladies, but a lot of this stuff surprisingly works fairly well.  Obviously not everybody is going to like it.  In fact, I’ve seen reviews that were quite….scathing.  You could certainly do worse than this.  Improvements could have been made.  Had the movie actually not bothered to reference the previous films in the franchise, it might have done better.  As it stands, I don’t see this movie doing well overseas.  China has pretty banned all movies involving ghosts and the supernatural due to an obscure law, so China’s out of the question.  Honestly, I hope the film does well enough to warrant a sequel, because I want to see where they go next.  I would like the next film to be directed by somebody other than Mr. Feig.  He’s not a bad director, but he was not a great choice for this movie.  My final conclusion is a decent 7/10.  I actually liked it a bit.  Is it a good movie?  Not really, but it’s not a train-wreck either.

 

 

No comments

Foreign Films: Subtitles or Dubbing?

  By

The topic of subtitles vs dubbing is one that I’ve been wanting to cover for a while now.  I just haven’t really found a way to do it right.  Over the past 20 or so years, I’ve heard MANY arguments for audio dubbing on foreign films.  I’ve also heard arguments that subtitles should be used for foreign movies and that people should just get used to having subtitles.  Before I get into which side I actually fall on, I would like to go into some detail into what subtitles are and what they are used for and what dubbing is.  For those of you not in the know, subtitles are small that appears at the bottom of a movie or TV show that is essentially a transcript for what the characters are saying.  Most of the time, subtitles are used because some people are deaf and they can’t hear what’s being said, so it’s a legitimate thing for disabled people.  Subtitles are also used for movies that were made in another country where they don’t speak English, or whatever language that isn’t prevalent in that region.  When movies are released in certain regions, subtitles are generally used for people that don’t speak that particular language.  For instance, here in the states and in other English-speaking countries, subtitles are used for movies like Gojira, The Assassin or any movie from Hong Kong or Thailand.

There is a technique in post-processing called audio dubbing in which additional recordings are mixed with the original to create a more complete soundtrack.  In film-making, it happens all the time.  You can’t just use audio from the boom mic because it will pick up additional sounds from the environment or isn’t loud enough for the audiences to hear.  So, the actors have to go through a process called ADR, which is Additional Dialogue Replacement.  Actors go into a recording studio and they have to repeat their lines in almost the same kind of performance that they gave on the actual shoot, but in this case, the final audio is clearer and easier to hear.  Again, it’s the process of making a movie.  However, when it comes to foreign movies, a lot of companies end up using American actors to “dub” over the original actors lines.  This is used for people who are too lazy to read the subtitles.

When it comes to dubbing an English-language film, it’s not necessarily an issue for me.  My issue is that in a foreign film where a different language is spoken, things get lost in translation whenever the film is dubbed into English.  Truthfully, almost everything gets lost in translation with that.  When people complain about going to a foreign-language movie, some of them whine about horrible performances.  I have to ask the question:  Did you see it in it’s original language with subtitles or did you see the English-dubbed version.  If you saw the English-dubbed version, then yeah, you’re not going to get the same performances.  Let me tell you exactly why that is.  The English-speaking actors that are dubbing for the on-screen actors can’t match the performances on the screen, so the overall presentation feels extremely uneven and unintentionally hilarious at times.  What you are hearing isn’t necessarily matching what you are seeing.  Don’t believe me?  Check out some of the older kung fu movies or Godzilla movies.  Those are perfect examples of why English dubbing is bad.  To be fair, there are a select few foreign actors out there that will dub their own lines into English.  Jackie Chan is one of those people, and you know what?  It strangely works.  He can do it.  People who complain about having to read subtitles in their movies are inherently lazy.  Yeah, I’m going to piss some people off, but it’s the honest truth.  It only takes a second or two to read those subtitles, and while you’re reading them, you can still see what’s going on, so I don’t understand that complaint.  I get that people’s attention spans are at a record low, but you know what?  Deal with it.  You get a much more fulfilling experience with those subtitles then you ever will with dubbing.  Besides, the actors they get to do the dubbing are generally really lousy actors.  So…subtitles or dubbing for foreign movies?  There’s no comparison here.  Subtitles all the way.

No comments

The Best Directors: Paul Verhoeven

  By

Born in Amsterdam in the Netherlands in 1938, Paul Verhoeven experienced the horror of war almost first-hand during World War II.  Living in a house near a German base with V-1 and V2 Rocke Launchers, the base was bombarded by Allied aircraft.  His parents were nearly killed when bombs fell on a street crossing.  The fact that he survived World War II, considering where he lived, was a minor miracle.  After the liberation of the Netherlands, Mr. Verhoeven and his father went and saw American movies on a regular basis.  While the man had majored in math and physics, he would devote his time and energy to film-making.  After making a bit of a splash during the late 60’s, Mr. Verhoeven moved to Hollywood during the 80’s for a variety of opportunities.  It was during this time that Paul Verhoeven would create some of the most memorable movies that are iconic, even by today’s standards, so I would like to celebrate the man and his career by talking about his best work.

RoboCop

In 1984, James Cameron burst onto the scene with one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time, The Terminator.  There were a number of imitators that followed, but one of the films that really took the world by storm was Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop.  The trailer used the main music theme to The Terminator, so it felt like a rip-off, but the film was so much more than that.  It was a blatant commentary on certain social issues like rampant consumerism, as evidenced by the numerous faux commercials that would play during the movie.  This was also one of Peter Weller’s most memorable roles as Detective Alex Murphy, who gets killed in the line of duty, only to be brought back as the mechanical RoboCop.  It was violent, bloody and surprisingly funny at the same time.  It got hammered by critics because of it’s excessive violence, so much so, that the film had to be edited to take some of that out.  It was still really violent and that would become one of Paul Verhoeven’s trademarks.

Total Recall

Paul Verhoeven comes back with an astounding “adaptation” of Philip K. Dick’s We’ll Remember It For You Wholesale.  Featuring an all-star cast that includes Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sharon Stone, Michael Ironside and Ronny Cox, Total Recall took the world by storm when it was released in 1990.  Like most of Verhoeven’s American-made movies, it featured gratuitous violence.  The visual effects were out of this world, in terms of puppetry and make-up effects.  It was a spectacular film.  Again, critics attacked the film for its ultra-violence, but it was so over-the-top, that you couldn’t take it seriously.  It had great action, memorable characters and a fairly decent story to back it all up.  I highly consider this to be one of my personal favorites.

Starship Troopers

This is the movie where things get….interesting.  Starship Troopers is LOOSELY based on Robert A. Heinlein’s book of the same name.  By loosely, I mean, almost not at all.  It has some elements from the book, but for the most part, Paul Verhoeven’s adaptation is essentially its own entity.  When I reviewed the movie, I mentioned that the audience was pretty divided into two groups:  The people that read the book before the movie came out and the people that read the book after the movie came out.  The people that read the book first, generally hated the picture because it deviated so far from the source material it was unrecognizable.  Where were the power suits?  Where were the bugs that shot lasers?  Where was the queen?  These elements were left on the floor, although a prototype suit was built for the movie, but was never used because the budget didn’t allow for it.  But the people who saw the film first actually really liked it.  I was one of those people.  It was visually spectacular, had an awesome cast and a fairly decent story.  It also had a bad-ass score by the late Basil Poledouris.  The visual effects and CGI in the film were ground-breaking.  I hadn’t seen anything like it, and the visuals still hold up after nearly 20 years.  Then, I read the book.  I understood why a lot of people didn’t like the movie.  A lot of the elements in the book were left out.  When it was discovered that Verhoeven didn’t actually like the book, that pissed people off even more.

Had the movie been called anything but Starship Troopers, I think it would’ve been better received by the majority of the audience.  As it stands, however, it’s still a very solid piece of science fiction and movie with a great visual effects and memorable characters, and that’s what Paul Verhoeven delivered.  As was the norm with Paul’s movies, there was a level of commentary throughout the entire film against blind patriotism and use of the military.  The use of propaganda in the film was particularly intelligent, because of Paul’s personal experience with the Nazi government.  He poked fun at a lot of things in the movie, and a lot of people didn’t get it.  It’s smarter than most people give it credit for.

While Verhoeven did other movies like Basic Instinct and Hollow Man, these ones were the ones that really stood out for me from Paul Verhoeven.  He’s crafted some of the most iconic and memorable movies that I’ve ever seen.  I think the man will be remembered as influential as well as controversial.

No comments

The Best: Movie Speeches

  By

Whenever soldiers go into battle, whether it was the knights of Europe or today’s battle-hardened combat troops, there was always a commanding officer giving an incredibly moving and inspiring speech.  In the movie world, it’s no different, except it’s to get the audiences pumped for an upcoming battle of epic proportions.  For this reason, this episode of The Best will feature the greatest movie speeches ever.  Nothing gets the blood pumping like a bad-ass speech from a charismatic leader.  So, without further delay, here are The Best: Movie Speeches.

Pacific Rim

This one falls into the “short-but-sweet” category.  After a resounding success by the humans against the alien Kaiju monsters, Idris Elba’s Stacker Pentecost delivers a powerful speech that gets the survivors ready for the final battle.  I don’t think anybody could have done this as well as Mr. Elba.  He’s got that gruff and confident bravado that comes with experience and he proves that he’s the leader that they need.  It’s pretty bad-ass.

Braveheart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE

Is there anybody who has NOT seen this movie yet?  Well, let me tell you why you should:  Just for this speech.  It’s powerful, affecting, and combined with James Horner’s fantastic score, this is the kind of speech that makes you want to pick up a Scottish claymore and stand in defiance.  This is Mel Gibson at his finest, both directing and starring in.  Braveheart is one of the greatest epics ever put on the silver screen.  This has to be seen.

Patton

This is another historical figure, General George S. Patton, who delivered this rousing speech to the Third Army during World War II.  Now, granted: the film’s version of the speech was truncated quite a bit, but it still had the effect that the movie-makers were going for.  George C. Scott was the only choice to play the legendary 4-Star General.  While I don’t personally think his rhetoric would sit well in today’s world, but I have to admit, he got the men moving during World War II.

Independence Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj16vfbsM9A

What can I say about this one?  This one is definitely a personal favorite.  Yeah, it’s science fiction, but Independence Day is still one of the funnest blockbusters ever released.  This speech by Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore sends chills down my spine every time I watch it.  Why?  Because it’s a good goddamn speech, that’s why.  While the film may come across as cheesy at times, you can’t ignore the star power in the film.  Nobody could have delivered this speech the way Bill Pullman did.

Gladiator

For Gladiator, you get two for the price of one.  Russell Crowe plays General Maximus Decimus Meridius, the commander of the armies of the north.  Betrayed and left for dead by “Emperor” Commodus, Maximus returns to unleash his vengeance on the man who murdered his family.  The opening speech is as amusing as it is inspiring: “What we do in life echoes in eternity.”  The second was more of a threat than an actual speech, but it still counts as far as I’m concerned.  It’s VERY powerful.  Nobody else but Russell Crowe could have pulled it off.

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MsRcq9rvTQ

Aragorn’s speech at the Battle of the Black Gate is one for the history books.  Viggo Mortensen delivers one of the most iconic battle speeches in cinema history as the new king of Gondor.  Return of the King?  Oh, yes.  That is a definite yes.  This is one of the most impassioned speeches I’ve seen in years, and still hasn’t been matched to this day.  It’s a great movie and a great conclusion to a great film series, so it has to be big.

Those are my picks for some of The Best: Movie Speeches ever.  So, feel free to add any of your own down below and I will talk to you next time on The Best.