God bless Timur Bekmambetov. The guy does things his way and with his vision. He kicks Hollywood in the balls and says “I like to do it my way with better stories, original visuals and more flare.” Yeah I know he’s only the producer here, but still, contrary to popular belief, the world does not need more Spiderman or another Iron Man. What the world needs now, at its darkest hour, is a little black lightning. This ain’t your papa’s Chitty Chitty Bang Bang…
.
Will be skipping this. After 3 movies I’ve come to the conclusion I’m not a fan of this guy’s style at all. He chooses flash over substance at just about every opportunity.
The thing is his films are really not filled with original images. Wanted is one of the most derivative big budget films that hollywood has produced as of late.
Right. Well, enjoy watching a guy in a robot suit fly around and fight another guy in a robot suit. Should be totally refreshing from everything else next summer.
How does that make Wanted less derivative?
Besides in Wanted MacAboy is using his magic bullet curving powers to fight other people with exact same magic bullet throwing powers. So the same objection applies.
I’ve kind of soured on Timur Bekmambetov because the grit of Nightwatch that overcame all of its narrative shortcomings is been getting further and further buffed out. Day Watch managed to wrap things up in a compelling (if not-quite-nonsensical and kinda Point A- to Point A) sort of way, but Wanted was completely lost on me, the visuals too slick and hollow, the story terrible and derivative as hell (Hello Fight Club with superpowers)
THis certainly looks like B.’s take on the ‘superhero’ genre (a la Ironman and Spiderman).
“Well, enjoy watching a guy in a robot suit fly around and fight another guy in a robot suit. Should be totally refreshing from everything else next summer.”
If you want to break things down to a simplistic level, Timur’s movies are no more original. Take it back to the ‘how it is about it’ Ebert quote. I had no need for Iron Man 2, but I’d probably rather watch a cleanly and broadly produced superhero movie with RDJ’s banter filling the gaps than what Timur has in store. Timur’s style is more subversive, yeah sure, but subversive and good are not mutually exclusive terms.
…I mean seriously, Domino is a much more unique action movie than Iron Man too, but so what?
So what? It’s far more entertaining. It’s fresh. You might not like Domino, but at least it does new and interesting things. I’ve liked everything I’ve seen from Bekmambetov thus far. I really liked Wanted. It was funny and did neat looking things with a character I really liked. I’ve discovered (as my bio points out) that I am a sucker for new things. Show me one thing that I’ve not seen before; one thing that looks cool; or one thing that stirs me in a way I’ve not been stirred before and I’m probably on board. Wanted did this several times.
Night Watch and Day Watch did tons of things (both in visuals and in the narrative) I hadn’t seen before. 9 looks like more of that as well (though I’ve only seen the trailer).
That shot in this trailer of the battle in Moscow (or wherever they are) at Christmas time looks gorgeous. All the lit up buildings and strings of lights everywhere just looks cool as hell. That is the kind of added detail and flare that movies like Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man, et al. neglect – hence they get boring to look at really quickly. Since there’s no emotional component to the story, what are we left with? Black Lightning may not bring anything according to Hoyle “new” to the table, but at least it takes things we already know and spins them or just adds a little something extra to them to keep them fresh. Unlike pretty much any super hero movie of the past 8 years (not including Watchmen which was the biggest mess piece of shit it doesn’t matter anyway).
I like Domino *Ducks and Runs for Cover* (That and Southland Tales are Richard Kelly’s sort of a ‘channel hopping’ duology)
I think 9 is under rated. It’s storyline is not the best of all time. But it was never a significant problem. There’s atmosphere, suspense and beautiful designs. I thought the characters were decent as well.
At 50 minutes or however long it was, it never lived out it’s welcome.
@ That is the kind of added detail and flare that movies like Hulk, Iron Man, Spider-Man, et al. neglect
Ang Lee’s Hulk is a very unique looking film Andrew. I suspect you’re refering to Incredible Hulk which is not very unique in any way. I caught part of it on cable recently and still kinda like it. It might not be original but taken for what it is it’s decent.
And come to think of it. I really surprised you didn’t like Watchmen more. If you’re really, as you say, a sucker for anything new then there’s at least as much reason to like Watchmen as Wanted. Rorschoch’s mask for instance is a very iconic image that I’ve not seen before in a film. I’m not a big fan of either (I liked Wanted ok when it came out but I’ve since turned against it. Watchmen’s biggest flaw it’s that it’s not even a mote in the eye of Watchmen) but I don’t see how it could be any more vapid or superficial than Wanted. So I would think point: Snyder.
And on the subject, have you read the comic Wanted?
And I’m not into this Raimi Spider-Man bashing that’s in vogue now either. If you want visual ingenuity then you should appreciate Doc Ock’s arms killing the doctors while he’s asleep, crawling up the side of a building like a metal daddy long legs, Sandman forming in the pit and the brilliantly underrated evil-peter parker dance sequence. And Raimi brings more of a unique voice to Spider-man than Brek-whatever brings to Wanted. I really appreciate Raimi’s sadistic sense of humor coming through the films. Wanted is a beat for beat rip off of The Matrix by way of some dumbest-guy-in-the-room-take-on-Fight-Club style “social commentery” that everyone should be embarrassed for. Honestly it one of the weirdest choices to praise for originality.
“but at least it does new and interesting things.”
I care about what fits the material. I like style but most of the time when its made the priority, the movie absolutely stinks.
Megadittos to Rusty’s last comment
Haven’t seen any of Timur Bekmambetov’s films, but I doubt they are more original in style than Ang Lee’s Hulk. The trailer for wanted did little for me. I think the reason why Andrew likes it so much, which he is trying to say is originality because he doesn’t know any better himself, is that the main character is relatable to him. Andrew is the sort of guy who appreciates *dumbest-guy-in-the-room-take-on-Fight-Club style “social commentery”*, because it speaks to him on a level he understands.
Henrik, you’re being a dick.
Well it makes sense to me. I’m sorry if it’s harsh. I have to follow logic.
“Haven’t seen any of Timur Bekmambetov’s films…”
Then shut the fuck up. Again. Please.
Anyway…
Yes I was referring to the Edward Norton “Incredible Hulk.” Not Hulk. And I don’t bash Spiderman because it’s hip right now. I’ve NEVER understood the love for those movies. I went to S1 on opening night and nearly fell asleep it was so boring. I have to agree with the Doc Ock thing though. That’s the one positive imagery I have in my head of the entire trilogy. Otherwise the characters and plotlines are endlessly boring.
I found Wanted to be more like Office Space meets Matrix – less than Fight Club meets Matrix. I don’t think it was taking itself as seriously as a Fincher film. I mean it had hundreds of exploding rats for god sakes. Awesome.
I think we already had this discussion:
http://www.rowthree.com/2008/06/18/review-wanted/
@ And I don’t bash Spiderman because it’s hip right now. I’ve NEVER understood the love for those movies.
congratulations, you’ve been wrong longer than everyone else. lulz.
Ok then seriously. Tell me what it is I am missing about the Spiderman movies. What makes them so great? Why do people put them near the top of their “best of trilogies” lists? I mean it’s the same plot in each movie. It’s the same lame effects in each movie and the same terrible, boring villains (though admittedly Doc Ock was tolerable). I mean watching a guy swing around the city is kind of neat for a few minutes, but after over 6 hours isn’t it kind of tired? I mean it’s worse than the pirate movies.
I know you guys hate it when I do this. But someone please tell me why the critics score for Spider-Man 2 beats any Coen brothers movie out there except Blood Simple. Sorry. This is not a subjective matter. That is flat out incorrect.
@ But someone please tell me why the critics score for Spider-Man 2 beats any Coen brothers movie out there except Blood Simple.
So in other words you want us to explain to you what RT is and how it works. Pass.
I will go on record that on rewatches, Spiderman 2 doesn’t seem as fresh and focused as it initially did. I’d especially say that the things people complain about in Spiderman 3 are still quite apparent in Spiderman 2. MJ is way more unfair to Parker in the 2nd film.
Time to get off the rants against the RT system. It’s very possible to even out in other ways, as in a movie can get 100% when everyone gives it just passable reviews, and something can get 60% with all the positives being perfect scores and all the negatives being mild disappointments.
“I mean watching a guy swing around the city is kind of neat for a few minutes, but after over 6 hours isn’t it kind of tired?”
If you’re being literal at all, Spiderman probably only swings for a few minutes total screen time throughout all 3 movies. The Spiderman movies are praised for Raimi’s style and sense of humor and it’s high quality set pieces. You nail both of these things and you have a crowd pleasing action movie. It’s not hard to explain.
Also, attacking RT and Metacritic scores doesn’t account that like it or not, people review different movies in different ways. The Coens probably face a much higher critical standard given their track record, whereas most blockbusters will pass/fail on the level that they entertain.
If there was a Tomatometer based on how much a film is respected, you’d find a lot of the high profile well loved blockbusters well below something divisive like Synecdoche New York.
I like Spider-Man 1, 2 & 3 more than most of the Coen brothers movies I’ve seen, if not all of them.
Andrew, my point was not made towards the films, but towards the arguments in this thread, which I think is fair to comment on, since I have read them.
“Same plot in every movie”. Please. This only applies if you only look at mechanics (hero, villain) and forget the characters. To some of us, characters are more important than the events they go through. That is why we can watch several movies about people getting cancer and don’t go “Cancer again!? SEEN IT!” Did you not notice how Peter Parker and Mary Jane developed through the movies? Pirates, I have only seen the first two, but there was no development in the characters. Johnny Depp was doing the same skit in them all way through.
“This only applies if you only look at mechanics (hero, villain) and forget the characters. To some of us, characters are more important than the events they go through.”
Most movies are their own case study for me, but there’s definitely a number of franchises this applies to for me. Two words: James Bond.
Well, see, James Bond I can see Andrew having a point towards. If you don’t find the plot interesting, you won’t care, because the character is nothing. Heck, they go so far as to change actors before the character! There really is no development, which in my opinion, makes it inferior to Spider-Man. But of course, if you enjoy the character you’re going to like the movies. I guess it makes sense. It’s like Indiana Jones too right? No development, but people find the character appealing enough to just spend time with him doing nonsense.
I didn’t really think this when I watched Indy 4, but I wonder if people hate it because they tried to develop the character. I didn’t mind Indy 4 anymore than the rest of the series, so I am one of the few people who could stand re-watching it to make this assertion
.
“…because the character is nothing.”
Your opinion of course. Its Bond, Q, M, and Moneypenny if she’s around that keep people coming back. People dont care if there’s a proper plot so long as the character is breakin necks and getting laid. The actor changes only reinforce people’s love for that character – they demand it so much that it can survive repeated actor changes and a number of episodes bad enough they should have killed the series.
Yeah, when I say nothing, I mean nothing in terms of trying to reach a level of development so as to emulate an actual human being. I realize what you are saying is true, and I have nothing against it, even if I call it nothing.
Fair enough.
Speaking of characters… I’m watching BARRY LYNDON for the first time and am at the intermission, will finish tomorrow (its late). If it continues at the same quality, it may be the best movie I’ve seen all year, period. Its funny that what may be one of the best Kubrick movies is also the least iconic and maybe the least rewatchable. There isn’t a straigthforward plot, its vignette-ish, but damn if so far this isn’t an absolutely perfect movie.
btw, the year Barry Lyndon was nominated for best picture, it was up against One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest (the winner), Jaws, Dog Day Afternoon, and Nashville. Whether or not you love all those movies, that’s as competitive a year as you could name.
Barry Lyndon suffers from not being concerned with Barry! He isn’t interesting enough, but it sure is Kubrickian. The music is interesting too, lots of variations on themes from classical music and opera. Gorgeous, shallow movie. It lacks for me the punch of 2001 and Clockwork, the seething intelligence to cut through my mindset, but it’s good enough. Had it not been Kubrick, I would probably have been much more impressed.
Least iconic though? I definitely don’t think so. I would place it at the same level of something like The Shining or Lolita, the famous Kubrick films that people agree aren’t as groundbreaking as 2001, Clockwork and Strangelove.
It’s never intended to be overly concerned with Barry. It’s voyeuristic, which is why the narration works so awesomely with it. I think so far there’s also some comment that skilled as he is, there isn’t much to him. The Talented Mr. Lyndon.
But Andrew this film has a guy in a flying car battling another guy in a more advanced flying car. What makes that different from Iron Man?
This is just another superhero movie where the hero has a car instead of a power suit.
@GOON: “Speaking of characters… I’m watching BARRY LYNDON for the first time and am at the intermission, will finish tomorrow (its late). If it continues at the same quality, it may be the best movie I’ve seen all year, period. Its funny that what may be one of the best Kubrick movies is also the least iconic and maybe the least rewatchable. There isn’t a straigthforward plot, its vignette-ish, but damn if so far this isn’t an absolutely perfect movie.”
I had a similar reaction on first viewing of Barry Lyndon several years ago, I think it is up there with Kubricks best film, for the visual look of the film alone. Big vistas, fabulous framing, and candle-lit moments. I think Lyndon is both an audience surrogate (you follow his journey) and a bit of an alien as well as he seems quite detached from everything, far more than the average viewer.
Still one memorable moment, which packs a rare sentimental emotional punch for Kubrick is the ‘child death bed’ scene which should be a maudlin cliche, but was actually strongly effecting for me when watching it. And I didn’t even have children at the time…
In the end, Barry Lyndon is watched now with the same ‘regular’ schedule that I watch all of Kubrick’s masterpieces.
ALso, an earlier RowThree post on Lyndon: http://www.rowthree.com/2008/11/26/i-read-it-on-the-internet/
It’s never intended to to be overly concerned with Barry (…) – and it suffers from it.
na – if he wasnt so (kurts words:) alien, I don’t think I would see this as much as a Kubrick film. Detachment is an ongoing Kubrick thing, don’t you agree?
I’m not sure if I agree. I’m sure that you can point to examples of detachment in all his films, thinking about it I easily understood what you meant, but it’s usually more adequately pulled off than in Barry Lyndon in my opinion. It’s just a problem for me that we never get to know the character, it makes it less interesting, and more of a showcase for me.
I mean Alex DeLarge could easily be described as detached, but he has personality.
I’d point to just about every movie as largely being detached/in observation of its characters rather than a full on study. It’s a bit more obvious to me in Barry Lyndon for example because of the way narration is used. The narration even acts as spoiler in a major way in the second act. Maybe the Shining comes closest to breaking that, but regardless just about all of his movies avoid characters spilling their guts about what they’re feeling. Very little in the way of arguments and outwardly spoken clashes of personality, he keeps things much more below the surface. And I don’t think the direction is ever done in a way that casts judgment on anyone for their actions.
I mean even when you look at A.I., for all the touches Spielberg has of himself that he added, overall I can see why Kubrick was attracted to it, and I can see Steven still trying to add that detached style in many parts.
You are probably right, my problem is most likely that Barry Lyndon is just a boring character. But, when I say stuff like the movie suffers from not being concerned with Barry, it should not read as if I consider the direction of the film, and the character of Barry as two separate entities, and it is a choice from the director to leave the character unexplored. It is all part of the movie, and the movies problems are the directors problems are the scripts problems are everything in the movie.
Well, I think I don’t bother arguing with “bored” anymore. I know how when one disagrees hearing ‘boring’ sounds like the most ignorant writeoff, but to me sometimes its just a plain valid expression of one’s taste in characters/situations, etc.