Thursday, February 18, 2010

Oscar Watch Review: In The Loop

Promotional poster for In the Loop parodying t...Image via Wikipedia

Film: In the Loop
Nomination: Best Adapted Screenplay

A while ago, I surprised a lot of people by expressing my lack of enthusiasm for the film Superbad. My reason perplexed them even more, as it was the incessant vulgar language, which comes out of the gate at top speed in the opening scene. While being far from easily offended type, and not adverse from using my own collection of colorful language, I couldn't really find the humor of these teenagers cursing up a storm while raiding a convenience store for snacks. It just felt forced, and despite some actually humorous scenes scattered throughout the rest of the film, I couldn't get past the feeling that the film's main motivation was to shock the audience with a cacophany of cursing.

Why do I bring this up? Because In the Loop contains enough foul language to make Betty White blush, enough inventive insults to put Don Rickles to shame, and enough F-Bombs to start a war of its own.

It is fucking brilliant.

Of course, there is so much more to In the Loop than the language. This spin-off of the popular British television show The Thick of It is a political satire involving the behind-the-scenes events taking place during the run-up to the Iraq War, and the mid-level government officials in both England and America scrambling to either jump-start the war or stop it dead in its tracks. This might sound like a topic for a serious made-for-TV mini-series, but the approach that writer/director Armando Iannucci and his co-writers successfully finds the dry and abrasive humor in the origins of a war that both nations are still mired in today.

Many critics and reviewers have chosen to compare In the Loop to Dr. Strangelove, no doubt because both are political satires with a strong anti-war message (and both featured British comedic talents), but this comparison tends to ignore the vast difference between the nearly surreal slapstick comedy of Strangelove and the exceedingly dry and uncomfortably abusive humor of Loop. With this in mind, Loop would be far better described as an Anti-West Wing crossed with The Office, on crack and with Tourette Syndrome.

Did I mention the abusive language? Much like Kevin Spacey in Swimming With Sharks or Jeremy Piven in Entourage, most of the cast of In the Loop bulldoze through their scenes verbally assaulting anything that gets in their way, while the remaining dazed and startled characters do their best to get out of the way. But unlike Superbad, here the language is not only justified, but an integral part of the atmosphere. The dog-eat-dog nature of these behind the scenes power plays and struggles are so brutal and bare-knuckled, you keep waiting, even hoping, for someone to snap and throw a punch. These profane diatribes and stinging insults are the weapons of choice for this battlefield leading up to the real battlefield, and fit right into the hectic, paranoid and franticly paced atmosphere these characters work in on a daily basis.

This might be a bit oppressive for some viewers, especially when considering that there are few if any characters worth rooting for. Armando Iannucci has a talent for presenting characters multifaceted enough to prevent them from filling the traditional roles of Heroes and Villains. Initially meek and soft-spoken characters (in comparison to others, at least) such as those played by Tom Hollander and Chris Addison are charming and likable at first, but they eventually show weaknesses and flaws that prevent you from fully feeling any real sympathy for them, while even Peter Capaldi's complete and utter bastard Malcolm Tucker (one of only two returning characters from The Thick of It) is given a moment or two of undeniable humanity. There are a couple of points in the film in which you will be unsure of who to root for, and other's still when the side you chose might shock or even shame you a little. No clear lines are really drawn here, even when it comes to where the humor stops and the serious issues begin.

It is this kind of complexity that makes In the Loop a strong contender for Best Adapted Screenplay, despite having more foul language than a double feature of Scarface and Reservoir Dogs. But you don't have to take my word for it. IFC has made the screenplay available for free download. Read it and judge for yourself.      

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, February 13, 2010

This Valentine's Day, Give the Gift of Penis

Or, to be more precise, give the gift of MovieSucktastic Episode #11, the Valentine's Day Special. The focus of this episode? Full frontal male nudity in film.

In their last episode, Joey and Scott spent a fair amount of time discussing the lengthy nude wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates in the Ken Russel film Women in Love. As much as they tried to put it behind them, this flagrant display of thespian penises left a taste in their mouths that they simply couldn't ignore. The idea of full frontal male nudity in films kept growing in their minds, until it was far too hard to keep down. Finally, the decision was made: A Penis Episode must be recorded.

Here it is, just in time for Valentine's Day, an episode sure to fully satisfy the hopeless romantic residing deep inside you. In this special Valentine Day Penis Episode, Joey and Scott take a long, hard look at the films in which they have been exposed to male genitalia in their cinematic past, stretching from the recent viewing of Women in Love all the way back to their first traumatic childhood glimpses of nude actors in film.

So, join the proudly erect co-hosts of MovieSucktastic as they pay homage to the male actor's package this Valentine's Day. Download it from iTunes, Podcast Alley or Podcast.com, and give it to that special someone who makes you throb whenever they are near. They will thank you in the end.

Have a Penis Film that you think was unfairly overlooked? Share your soreness with Joey and Scott at themovieguys@moviesucktastic.com, and they'll do what they can to stroke your ego during the next podcast.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Bad Movie Alert: MacGruber

MacGruber is not only a completely convoluted and unsuccessful parody of MacGyver, it is based on a commercial. And not even a very popular commercial at that. Wonderful.






Honestly, I think I'd rather see a film based on the exploits of the Free Credit Report band.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Episode #10 - Naked Men, Looker Labs and Avatar Apologists

The newest episode of the MovieSucktastic Podcast is up, just in time for all of those movie-lovers snowed in across the East Coast. This time around, on top of our normal Top Ten review and Finger List nominations, Joey and Scott give their in-depth reviews of the latest round of movie challenges.


Joey's challenge to Scott this episode: the 1969 Ken Russel adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love, one of the first mainstream films to ever feature full frontal male nudity, as well as the first film to win a Best Actress Academy Award for a role featuring a nude scene. That's right, you get to see Glenda Jackson's boobies. Unfortunately (for Scott, at least), Oliver Reed and Alan Bates get much more nude screen time.

Scott's challenge to Joey: The eighties science fiction thriller Looker, written and directed by Michael Crichton nearly a decade before Jurassic Park made everyone forget about this film and Runaway. A scathing indictment of advertising, plastic surgery, and the notion that a sexy model can also be smart, Looker also features a former Partridge Family member in the buff. That's right, you get to see Susan Day's boobies. Fortunately (for Joey, at least), Albert Finney does not strip down for the cameras as well.

On top of all of this retro naked fun, Joey and Scott take a look back at their previous review of Avatar and decide on a new position regarding the film's quality, based mostly on the rabid defense it has received from its almost cult-like fan base. Let's just say they're a little less forgiving this time around.

Check it out on iTunes, Podcast Alley or Podcast.com, and then write to them at themovieguys@moviesucktastic.com and let them know what you think. You've heard from them, now let them hear from you!
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Look Behind You! Scary Mirrors Montage.

Some film genres are defined more by their cliches than they are their achievements. While this might be a bit unfair, it can be pretty funny, especially when the cliche in question is so predominantly embraced by the filmmakers despite its vast overuse.

Next to the Trip-While-Running-Through-The-Woods gag, one of the most popular scare tactics for horror films has been the sudden appearance of someone or something in the mirror behind someone. In celebration of this well-worn gimmick, the darker forces pervading the atmosphere over at FourFour have created this entertaining montage of scary mirror scenes.

Watch it with the lights off. And if see a reflection in the monitor of someone behind you while you are watching, don't worry. It's just me.





Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, February 8, 2010

Bad Blu-ray Releases for February 9

Running Man (1987) - Most likely the second-worst Stephen King film adaptation ever (with
Cover of Cover of The Phantom
Lawnmower Man (1992) stealing the trophy), nothing begs for a high-definition Blu-ray release more than a Predator (1987) reunion featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger running around in a skin-tight body suit with professional Cuban sidekick Maria Conchita Alonso at his side (kicking, presumably), throwing around cheesy one-liners so bad they make Commando look like a David Mamet production. Rob Cohen's textbook example of what kind of film you get when you burn through director's like soiled tissues.

The Phantom - Billy Zane, Treat Williams and Catherine Zeta-Jones team up in what was for years
considered by many to be the worst comic adaptation ever, until Frank Miller's complete and utter desecration of Will Eisner's The Spirit made everybody forget about Billy and his tight blue costume.

Hard Rain - One of the later films in Christian Slater's "How to Destroy a Promising Career" tour, this Die-Hard-In-An-Abandoned-Town-During-A-Major-Flood was originally titled The Flood, but received a quick name change when test audiences complained that it gave away the ending. Yet another glowing example of how Morgan Freeman's career can survive any kind of natural disaster.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, February 5, 2010

Is this really the Best Picture? Past and Present Oscar Winners.

Growing up, I would always make sure to tune into the Oscars every year. No matter how late it would go I'd watch it. As I became older, I started to get a bit jaded with the whole thing. Don't get me wrong, I still tuned in. But my appetite for it has waned over the years. The Academy has this knack for awarding mediocrity like no other.

For example, take the 63rd Academy Awards for 1990. Say what you will, Dances With Wolves was NOT the best picture that year. Was it a bad film? Absolutely not. But the winner that year should have been Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas, a cinematic masterpiece that was completely overlooked. Dances was your typical historical epic, and we all know how much Hollywood loves epics. Maybe if Goodfellas was named "Wiseguy" after the book it might have been a better contender, but they chose not to stick with it because of the well known TV show of the same name. It was also Costner’s directorial debut. Hollywood loves stuff like that. Scoresese loses, we all move on.

I thought the same thing at the 67th Academy Awards for 1994, when Forrest Gump won. While the special effects were groundbreaking at the time, they are completely dated today. The special effects are one of the biggest reasons it won. It was innovative, revolutionary and had done something we had never seen before. Unfortunately, it just doesn't hold up today. It does have a solid plot and is a good film, but we all know that Pulp Fiction was the clear cut winner that year. Quentin Tarantino lost to a gimmick, an undeniable fact in hindsight.

In 1997, when the 69th Academy Awards were underway, you could just smell that The English Patient was going to win. It had everything the Academy looks for; it was a period piece, it had top notch actors and amazing set design, and the costumes had the authentic look and feel of the time period. Unfortunately, it was also boring as shit. The film that should have won that year was without a doubt Fargo. It was funny, dramatic, touching and sad. It also had a wood chipper scene that probably cost it the Oscar. Should it have won? Yes. Did it? Of course not.

One of my favorite films is one that got snubbed badly in the 71st Academy Awards for 1998. That film was Saving Private Ryan. The very passable Shakespeare In Love won the Best Picture that year. Ryan had everything a Best Picture should have; plot, acting, drama, and directing (which Spielberg won for). Shakespeare in Love was a period piece, which in itself seems enough to garner a nomination. It also was one of the most average films to be nominated that year. Dame Judy Dench also won for Best Supporting Actress for what I believe was only 7 minutes of screen time. Everyone else nominated that in that category that year had every right to be angry. I know I would have been if I were up for Best Supporting Actress.

The 74th and 75th Academy Awards can almost be forgiven for giving the Best Picture award to A Beautiful Mind (2001) and Chicago (2002). It's a well know fact that the Academy was NOT going to Give the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy a very deserved Best Picture for three straight years. Instead they gave it to the two best runner ups those years and heavily awarded The Return Of The King in 2003. As much as it would have been deserved, Hollywood probably would have been shunned for it. I don't agree, but I understand.

This brings me to this year, and the 82nd Academy Awards for 2009. Never have I seen so many uninspiring movies nominated for best picture by the books. This is not to say that there were not a few surprises in there, namely UP and District 9. But for the most part, it is a very unimpressive year. This brings me back to the Academy rewarding mediocrity, which brings us back to this year’s probable winner, Avatar.

Avatar is not necessarily a bad film, but it sure as hell isn't Best Picture material. Now I won't sit here and tell you you're wrong for loving this film (I have Scott for that). What I will say is that it is an average film at best, with a weak plot that barely supports the hefty runtime and generous serving of 3-D CGI. When it comes time to vote, I really hope that the Academy is smarter than it has been in the past. There are so many better films to consider. Hopefully they don't fall into the hype of how it's the "Most Popular" or made the "Most Money" or "Best 3-D". We're talking about Best Picture here, people! If Avatar is the best we can come up with for Best Picture than we are truly in trouble. Tarantino, whose “ Inglourious Basterds” was a far better film, will be snubbed yet again, and by yet another big-budget film with an expensive and over-produced gimmick.

Here's my prediction, and I REALLY hope I’m wrong. I think the Academy will award Tarantino with Best Director so they can feel justified for giving Avatar Best Picture. This is something that has happened in the past and hopefully will not happen this year. All of the things that Avatar does well are nothing more than what the technical awards should handle. Then again, I think it would be damn funny if District 9 were to win Best Special Effects. It would be nice if innovation and skill won out over mega-budget extravaganzas for a change. I was more impressed with D9's effects than I was at Avatar's overgrown Smurfs, and it only cost $30 million in comparison to Avatar’s bloated $400+ million dollar budget. Also, why is Avatar nominated for Best Cinematography? Where is logic behind that? Were they filming on location in Pandora instead of in front of a green screen? I think not.

Will this years awards be as dried out and lackluster as I’m thinking? We'll find out March 7th, 2010. Let's hope I'm pleasantly surprised.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]