Facts: 1998 was a bad year for movies, unless you like asteroids. The hulking older brother of the two summer flicks, Armageddon is looming on the horizon of mediocracy waiting to burst upon the scene with a flourish of ill-conceived subplot and horrible dialogue. The nation was about to weep silently for star-crossed lovers and the untimely death of Bruce Willis, while they were trembling nervously awaiting the fate of humanity to be decided. Starring Bruce "It's a Chopper" Willis, Ben "I Used to Date Jennifer Lopez" Affeck, Liv "Could I Be Any More Waifish" Tyler, Billy Bob "Mr. Jolie" Thornton, and, for some reason, Steve Buscemi.
Plot summary: Malevolent asteroid sets its sights on Mother Earth. It announces its presence by destroying the space shuttle and several iconic world cities. NASA's best and brightest convene to devise a plan to stop impending disaster. Their conclusion: humanity's best hope is a ragtag team of oil drillers. After extensive training montages, this band of unlikable losers is hurled into space aboard the most advanced space shuttles ever. One of the shuttles contains said losers, the other is occupied by actual astronauts. You know, trained professionals. You get one guess as to which one ultimately saves the day. This motley crew encounters a stereotypical Russian guy while docking at his space station. Igor the cosmonaut, who of course wears a fuzzy hat, blows up the space station, nearly dooming the entire mission. One shuttle crash lands with but one survivor (Affleck), and it's up to the one remaining to carry out this zany, and obviously foolproof, plan. The crew starts drilling, but a broken drill bit puts the mission in jeopardy. Just when all hope looks lost, Affleck and his friend (whoever he is) show up to save the day. Bruce Willis ends up staying behind to detonate the nuke. Humanity is saved. Oh, and a few more things: Willis is Tyler's father, and she and Affleck are in love. Aerosmith plays. It's all quite nauseating.
Key moments of interest:
Space shuttle plus meteorite equals kaboom!
NYC plus meteorites equals OMG!
Cheese eating surrender monkeys get their comeuppance.
The president is incredulous.
"How could this have happened?"
Billy Bob Jolie and his NASA cronies devise a foolproof plan.
Who knows how to drill? Oil workers. Cue Willis.
Overprotective father engages in a homicidal shootout on an oil rig, much to the dismay of his co-workers.
Affleck survives, unfortunately.
Close up on Willis looking beleaguered and gruff.
"Well, the fate of the world depends on it. I guess we have no choice. My men will do it."
Personnel round up montage. We meet the gang. We're nervous.
We have pretty boy, surly guy, sleazy guy, rehabilitated guy (who just wants to make his son proud), fat lovable guy, and mandatory black guy.
Training montage. Because oil drillers can become astronauts in a few months. Sure.
Affleck knows what he's doing, but no one believes him. Give this guy a chance!
Startling revelation: the oil drillers are the best.
Pretty boy and the waif get schmoopy. Animal crackers are inserted in places they shouldn't go. For some reason, this turns her on.
Obligatory dramatic slow walk to the shuttle.
1...2...3...blast off!
Der crazy cosmonik blows up der Mir station.
Then some stuff happens.
One shuttle makes it to the asteroid.
Whose idea was it to fly through all this debris, anyway?
They miss their landing target, but goddammit, they're drillers! They'll make it work!
Affleck defies all known laws of gravity and physics and drives a dune buggy across the asteroid to meet up with the others. (Avert your scientific eyes.)
The drill get stuck but Affleck decides to keep pushing. The mission is saved.
Buscemi goes wild west on everyone with the Gatling gun they brought along for some reason. Must have been space dementia.
Someone has to stay behind to detonate the nuke, and of course Bruce Willis volunteers to do it.
Insert tearful goodbye to his daughter on Earth. Sniff.
They return to a hero's welcome.
Roll credits. Cue Aerosmith.
Snarky movie discussion:
ANG: The song "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" by Aerosmith plays a prominent role in this movie. What do you think this signifies about the importance of bad music to the future of humanity?
CRABS: One could easily argue that music is the soul of any civilization. Much like the ancient Romans destroyed themselves through indulgence and decadence, the ubiquity of good music in today's society could been sign of a harbinger of its collapse. Therefore, one could logically conclude that the perpetuation of civilization as we know it should be predicated upon embracing the antithesis of things that are good, hence bad music. I should add that if that doesn't make sense to you, that's okay, as I see this as one of the more subtle insights that the movie has to offer.
ANG: What do you make of Bruce Willis's sacrifice in a post 9/11 world?
CRABS: I think that much like the war on terrorism, the asteroid is an unknown and distant menace. I think Bruce Willis represents none other than western civilization in its entirety. His self-sacrifice and subsequent passing of the torch, so to speak, to the younger Affleck, could be interpreted as a suggestion that in order the destruction of old conventions and adoption of new doctrine is a necessary catalyst for social change.
ANG: Do you think that the success of our movie's heroes, the oil drillers turned astronauts, indicates a problem with current or past NASA culture? Are we dooming ourselves by relying on well-trained individuals?
CRABS: Undoubtedly so. And here's why. Intelligence, training, and professionalism will only take you so far. From what I've gathered about the culture of NASA and other large institutions, there's very little respect for the contributions of pluck, moxie, and a healthful disdain for authority figures. Perhaps these noble attributes could invigorate an uninspired culture of conformity and oppression.
ANG: Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck share a poignant, star-crossed love in the movie. In one pivotal scene, Affleck attempts to turn Tyler on by inserting animal crackers into her pants. What do you think this signifies about modern romance and the future of the family?
CRABS: Well, clearly in today's society family as a social unit has become devalued and diluted. Some might argue that this is due to overriding societal conventions dictating what can and cannot be accomplished with the erogenous zones. I find their inclusion of food indicative of changing cultural memes regarding the old taboos of sex and gender identity. Fifty years ago such activities would have been branded Communist, and those who engage in them would have been run out of town. But now I see activities like this in the park every weekend. Some might argue that this represents a covert attempt and liberalization of American culture. To those poeple I say: lighten up and go with the flow, old-timers.
For next time: Ang and Crabs actually sat through Super Mario Bros, and now you have to hear about it. Since this bastardized their childhood memories of this game, you could at least do them the favor of reading the next post.
Rating: four sticks in the eye. Uninspired yet wholly unmemorable.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Savage Planet - a beary bad movie (groan)...
Facts: The year was 2006. Special effects were at their zenith, but you wouldn't know it from this movie. From the depths of Hell came a movie so awful that Ang & Crabs had to hold their eyelids open with duct tape to get through it. The writer's strike was a year away, and we hold this movie solely responsible. The existence of a script as awful as this one may have caused it. Starring nobody worth remembering or mentioning (and nobody with a career today, except maybe the bears).
Plot summary: (Note: the term "plot summary" is in this case a relative term, and all of the characters' names are made up because none of them are remotely memorable). In the hazily defined future, some sort of virus or plague or something threatens Earth and the survival of humanity. Bad boy special agent D.B. McGee is called in for a perilous and top secret assignment. Turns out he'll be working for evil billionaire George W. Bush. George's previous crack team of cronies has discovered a secret planet with miraculous properties that may well hold the key to the resurrection of the human species. After some high-tech tomfoolery, our heroes (McGee and his team) are transported across the universe by a transporter that would've looked shitty on the old Star Trek, and land on Mystery Planet X. What ensues is a heart-stopping race against time, mutant bears, and their own internal demons culminating in a completely forgettable climax which is sure to leave audiences with jaws agape in a suicidal stupor.
Key moments of interest (well, key moments, at least):
Surprisingly the future looks like circa 1993.
Tree, meet hand. Hand, meet machete.
There's bears in them thar caves.
This antifreeze is magical!
The team is assembled: we've got D.B. McGee, Annoying Nerd Guy, Comic Relief Clown, Serious Military Man, George W. Bush, Hottie Scientist #1, and Hottie Scientist #2.
Step inside this concoction of PVC pipe and tinfoil and prepare for the ride of your life!
On Planet X, the transporter breaks down. We're trapped!
What was that rustling in the bushes? Probably just the squirrels.
Some guy (Comic Relief Clown?) is decapitated. By a bear. Really.
Wander, bear, die. Wander, bear, die. Repeat.
"You've been lying to us this whole time! You son of a bitch!"
Hottie Scientist #2 is cut in half. By a bear.
Annoying Nerd Guy takes off to find a mythological second transporter.
The planet is (somehow) tearing itself apart.
Surely there aren't any mutant bears in this cave! Cue bear decapitation.
Hottie Scientist #1 has had enough and grabs a gun.
What's left of the bunch tracks down Annoying Nerd Guy at the transporter pad.
As they're trying to escape, George W. Bush attempts to foil their escape.
GWB is sacrificed to the bears.
Due to the heroic sacrifice of Annoying Nerd Guy, Hottie Scientist #1 and D.B. McGee make it back to Earth with the Serum of Life.
D.B. and Hottie give a passionate speech about saving humanity and hope for the future and whatnot.
Special to today's conversation, the ICBIWT crew would like to welcome Dr. Ned Slandesky, distinguished professor of sociology and cryptozoology at the University of Southern Maine -- Pemberton campus. Per Dr. Slandesky's request, the theme of today's discussion will be "Savage Planet as a catalyst for the abolition of cinematic conventions and redefinition."
CRABS: Thank you for joining us today Professor Slandesky. I know you just got back from delivering the keynote address at the twenty-third international symposium on the state of modern man.
ANG: Yes, your address was exceptional. I particularly liked your comparison of modern soccer players to the deconstructionist ideas espoused by Derrida. Congratulations also on your recent award.
CRABS: Oh yes, of course. The Walter J. Beakman honorary award for contributions to the human dialog. Quite an achievement.
DR. SLANDESKY: Oh, thank you. The award is nothing to sneeze at, even though this is my second time winning it. I'm just glad to be here today. Strasbourg, the site of the conference, is a lovely city, but I find it a bit provincial for my tastes.
ANG: Don't you have a book coming out soon?
DR. SLANDESKY: Yes, of course. But let's not be trite. We're here to discuss the movie. We can talk about my book, Existential Musings and Things I Know: Epistemology in a Modern Age, another time.
CRABS: Clearly Savage Planet subverts every convention of modern film making. Let's begin our discussion with plot. Specifically, do you think the "plot" of the movie was a subtle attempt to mock and vilify our country's political underpinnings?
DR. SLANDESKY: A good question with an obvious answer. In my mind, plot is the most fundamental component of movie-making. Considering the complete absence of coherent plot and the intrinsic stupidity of the events portrayed in the film, I am led to the conclusion that the plot in this movie is an obvious allegory for our federal government. The ineptitude, corruption, and lasciviousness displayed by the characters have obvious parallels in Washington, and their bumbling, fumbling, and ultimately humbling escapades are clearly analogous to what we see in Congress.
ANG: Dr. Slandesky, as I understand it, you are one of the world's foremost Plato scholars. Is this correct?
DR. SLANDESKY: Why, yes. I studied at the University of Central Alberta.
ANG: Ah, very impressive. So let's discuss the philosophical implications of the film. I think they are considerable. The characters in Savage Planet do not understand the nature of their own humanity, and as such, are destroyed by it. Do you feel as if the movie hearkens to Plato's allegory of the cave?
DR. SLANDESKY: Ignoring the rather obvious inclusion of cave scenes and cave-dwelling bears, I do agree that the allegory is present, but I find it rather subtle. The bears represent the collective internal demons of humanity. When the characters are confronted by the bears, they lose in an often spectacular and gruesome fashion. A more prescient and apt metaphor for the internal struggle of good versus evil has never permeated my consciousness. In this way, the characters look to the cave walls for guidance on their life's paths but find only shadows, much as in Plato's masterwork. The regenerative substance found in the cave ultimately redeems them and all of humanity.
CRABS: Since you brought up the bears, let's continue on that topic. You've mentioned your interpretation of the symbolism of the bears, but I would like to offer a contrasting viewpoint.
ANG: But Dr. Slandesky is an expert on bears. He spent two years studying them in the Yukon. He lived in solitary confinement on Kodiak Island.
CRABS: Well, excellent then. Respond to the following statement. The bears, which are, lest we forget, mutant bears, represent the future. Their struggle against the characters represents the human quest towards the unknown and thirst for knowledge. And yet almost everyone is ultimately destroyed by the bears. Therefore, one must conclude that we are destined to destroy ourselves via a dystopic future of our own creation.
DR. SLANDESKY: Well, that's obviously preposterous. Anyone who has studied modern cinema as I have knows that bears are clear Oedipal references and as such cannot be harbingers of doom and despair. I refuse to answer such a pedestrian question. Ludicrous!
ANG: Apologies for the insult, Dr. Slandesky. Clearly we do not possess insight such as yours. One final question. We don't want to keep you too long. We know you have responsibilities to the National Society for the Furtherance of Modern Study of Paradigm Shifts. Let's discuss the dialog in the film. On the surface, it seems simple, even pedantic. And yet upon further study we find that every possible instance the dialog acts to reinforce the existing character archetypes. Do you think this was intentional or just purely coincidental?
DR. SLANDESKY: Well, it's funny you should ask, as I was actually selected by a group of my peers to edit the original screenplay. I took particular interest in the dialogue of the movie and essentially rewrote it to reinforce the stereotypes present in the film and to create a subtextual personality study highlighting the six dominant personality types as illustrated in my seminal book The Modern American Consciousness: A Codification Strategy for Adults.
CRABS: Well, I think that's about all the time we have. We'll let you get back to your studies, and we look forward to working with you on future projects.
ANG: Yes, you've been very insightful. We're pleased to have a scholar of your caliber to share his wisdom.
DR. SLANDESKY: Yes, yes. It's been a pleasure. I'll send you both copies of my book.
For next time. Armageddon. Oh, happy day.
Rating: nine sticks in the eye and a couple more for good measure. Really, really bad.
Plot summary: (Note: the term "plot summary" is in this case a relative term, and all of the characters' names are made up because none of them are remotely memorable). In the hazily defined future, some sort of virus or plague or something threatens Earth and the survival of humanity. Bad boy special agent D.B. McGee is called in for a perilous and top secret assignment. Turns out he'll be working for evil billionaire George W. Bush. George's previous crack team of cronies has discovered a secret planet with miraculous properties that may well hold the key to the resurrection of the human species. After some high-tech tomfoolery, our heroes (McGee and his team) are transported across the universe by a transporter that would've looked shitty on the old Star Trek, and land on Mystery Planet X. What ensues is a heart-stopping race against time, mutant bears, and their own internal demons culminating in a completely forgettable climax which is sure to leave audiences with jaws agape in a suicidal stupor.
Key moments of interest (well, key moments, at least):
Surprisingly the future looks like circa 1993.
Tree, meet hand. Hand, meet machete.
There's bears in them thar caves.
This antifreeze is magical!
The team is assembled: we've got D.B. McGee, Annoying Nerd Guy, Comic Relief Clown, Serious Military Man, George W. Bush, Hottie Scientist #1, and Hottie Scientist #2.
Step inside this concoction of PVC pipe and tinfoil and prepare for the ride of your life!
On Planet X, the transporter breaks down. We're trapped!
What was that rustling in the bushes? Probably just the squirrels.
Some guy (Comic Relief Clown?) is decapitated. By a bear. Really.
Wander, bear, die. Wander, bear, die. Repeat.
"You've been lying to us this whole time! You son of a bitch!"
Hottie Scientist #2 is cut in half. By a bear.
Annoying Nerd Guy takes off to find a mythological second transporter.
The planet is (somehow) tearing itself apart.
Surely there aren't any mutant bears in this cave! Cue bear decapitation.
Hottie Scientist #1 has had enough and grabs a gun.
What's left of the bunch tracks down Annoying Nerd Guy at the transporter pad.
As they're trying to escape, George W. Bush attempts to foil their escape.
GWB is sacrificed to the bears.
Due to the heroic sacrifice of Annoying Nerd Guy, Hottie Scientist #1 and D.B. McGee make it back to Earth with the Serum of Life.
D.B. and Hottie give a passionate speech about saving humanity and hope for the future and whatnot.
Special to today's conversation, the ICBIWT crew would like to welcome Dr. Ned Slandesky, distinguished professor of sociology and cryptozoology at the University of Southern Maine -- Pemberton campus. Per Dr. Slandesky's request, the theme of today's discussion will be "Savage Planet as a catalyst for the abolition of cinematic conventions and redefinition."
CRABS: Thank you for joining us today Professor Slandesky. I know you just got back from delivering the keynote address at the twenty-third international symposium on the state of modern man.
ANG: Yes, your address was exceptional. I particularly liked your comparison of modern soccer players to the deconstructionist ideas espoused by Derrida. Congratulations also on your recent award.
CRABS: Oh yes, of course. The Walter J. Beakman honorary award for contributions to the human dialog. Quite an achievement.
DR. SLANDESKY: Oh, thank you. The award is nothing to sneeze at, even though this is my second time winning it. I'm just glad to be here today. Strasbourg, the site of the conference, is a lovely city, but I find it a bit provincial for my tastes.
ANG: Don't you have a book coming out soon?
DR. SLANDESKY: Yes, of course. But let's not be trite. We're here to discuss the movie. We can talk about my book, Existential Musings and Things I Know: Epistemology in a Modern Age, another time.
CRABS: Clearly Savage Planet subverts every convention of modern film making. Let's begin our discussion with plot. Specifically, do you think the "plot" of the movie was a subtle attempt to mock and vilify our country's political underpinnings?
DR. SLANDESKY: A good question with an obvious answer. In my mind, plot is the most fundamental component of movie-making. Considering the complete absence of coherent plot and the intrinsic stupidity of the events portrayed in the film, I am led to the conclusion that the plot in this movie is an obvious allegory for our federal government. The ineptitude, corruption, and lasciviousness displayed by the characters have obvious parallels in Washington, and their bumbling, fumbling, and ultimately humbling escapades are clearly analogous to what we see in Congress.
ANG: Dr. Slandesky, as I understand it, you are one of the world's foremost Plato scholars. Is this correct?
DR. SLANDESKY: Why, yes. I studied at the University of Central Alberta.
ANG: Ah, very impressive. So let's discuss the philosophical implications of the film. I think they are considerable. The characters in Savage Planet do not understand the nature of their own humanity, and as such, are destroyed by it. Do you feel as if the movie hearkens to Plato's allegory of the cave?
DR. SLANDESKY: Ignoring the rather obvious inclusion of cave scenes and cave-dwelling bears, I do agree that the allegory is present, but I find it rather subtle. The bears represent the collective internal demons of humanity. When the characters are confronted by the bears, they lose in an often spectacular and gruesome fashion. A more prescient and apt metaphor for the internal struggle of good versus evil has never permeated my consciousness. In this way, the characters look to the cave walls for guidance on their life's paths but find only shadows, much as in Plato's masterwork. The regenerative substance found in the cave ultimately redeems them and all of humanity.
CRABS: Since you brought up the bears, let's continue on that topic. You've mentioned your interpretation of the symbolism of the bears, but I would like to offer a contrasting viewpoint.
ANG: But Dr. Slandesky is an expert on bears. He spent two years studying them in the Yukon. He lived in solitary confinement on Kodiak Island.
CRABS: Well, excellent then. Respond to the following statement. The bears, which are, lest we forget, mutant bears, represent the future. Their struggle against the characters represents the human quest towards the unknown and thirst for knowledge. And yet almost everyone is ultimately destroyed by the bears. Therefore, one must conclude that we are destined to destroy ourselves via a dystopic future of our own creation.
DR. SLANDESKY: Well, that's obviously preposterous. Anyone who has studied modern cinema as I have knows that bears are clear Oedipal references and as such cannot be harbingers of doom and despair. I refuse to answer such a pedestrian question. Ludicrous!
ANG: Apologies for the insult, Dr. Slandesky. Clearly we do not possess insight such as yours. One final question. We don't want to keep you too long. We know you have responsibilities to the National Society for the Furtherance of Modern Study of Paradigm Shifts. Let's discuss the dialog in the film. On the surface, it seems simple, even pedantic. And yet upon further study we find that every possible instance the dialog acts to reinforce the existing character archetypes. Do you think this was intentional or just purely coincidental?
DR. SLANDESKY: Well, it's funny you should ask, as I was actually selected by a group of my peers to edit the original screenplay. I took particular interest in the dialogue of the movie and essentially rewrote it to reinforce the stereotypes present in the film and to create a subtextual personality study highlighting the six dominant personality types as illustrated in my seminal book The Modern American Consciousness: A Codification Strategy for Adults.
CRABS: Well, I think that's about all the time we have. We'll let you get back to your studies, and we look forward to working with you on future projects.
ANG: Yes, you've been very insightful. We're pleased to have a scholar of your caliber to share his wisdom.
DR. SLANDESKY: Yes, yes. It's been a pleasure. I'll send you both copies of my book.
For next time. Armageddon. Oh, happy day.
Rating: nine sticks in the eye and a couple more for good measure. Really, really bad.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Volcano, or I Lava LA
Facts: The year was 1997. The nation was stumbling uncertainly preceding the impeachment of Slick Willie. The economy was booming, but underneath it all lay a magma chamber of doubt that was to render the the fabric of the nation asunder. Americans needed something to soothe their weary nerves. Strangely enough, that something was Volcano, a big-budget epic that redefined disaster movies as we know them. Starring Tommy "Establish a Perimeter" Jones, Anne "Maybe I'm a Lesbian, but Not Really" Heche, and Don "The Everyman" Cheadle.
Plot summary: Tommy takes a break from his long overdue vacation with his estranged daughter to check in on the happenings at the LA Emergency Response Center (or something like that). While he proceeds to neglect his daughter once again, across town totally believable geologist Anne is tooling about as geologists are wont to do and comes across some disturbing findings. Following a horrific subway accident, in which seven people are burned to a crisp, Tommy and Anne are sent to investigate. Thus begins a hazily-defined, ultimately-unrequited (and revolting) romantic interest storyline. They ultimately discover a surging magma chamber which finds in the La Brea tar pits a convenient mode of escape. As missile-like magma and rock fragments rain down upon unsuspecting citizens, Tommy takes it upon himself to initiate a battle against Mother Nature in an attempt to save the city. Somewhere along the way, his daughter is sent to the hospital (to treat a burn or somesuch). Eventually they decide that the lava must he stopped at all costs, at which point the logical solution to the problem is to build a lava barricade out of slabs of concrete. However, undeterred by the beaverish humans, the lava finds another route, at which point only the destruction of a newly-built office tower will divert the lava into the LA River and harmlessly out to sea, therefore ensuring the safety of the city and the continuation of humanity as we know it.
Key moments of interest:
Tommy's daughter arrives. She does not like him. Neither do we.
She's listlessly awaiting the conclusion of her unfulfilling vacation...oh, but wait...
The geological bosom buddies enter the sewers. One is more attractive than the other. Three guesses as to which one leaves unscathed.
Why won't anyone listen to this stunning female scientist?
Tommy can't get enough work even when he's supposed to be on vacation.
"Relax, we've got it under control."
The tar pits are boiling. Nothing to worry about, surely.
All Hell breaks loose! Lava lava everywhere!
Did Tommy seriously just dodge that lava missile?! What a pimp!
It's like Vietnam out here!
Anne and Tommy dangle precariously from a ladder. Miraculously they survive, escaping by the skin of their teeth.
Little Whiner Jones gets shipped off to the hospital where she finds her inner woman.
"Let's get these barriers up and stop this lava, dammit! They're our only hope!"
Remarkably, this ingenious plan doesn't work. The lava remains on the move.
Heart-rending Good Samaritan sacrifice number 1. Did that guy just walk on lava?
Second ingenious plan. Let's blow up this here building and make another dam.
Heart-rending Good Samaritan sacrifice number 2. There's no time to wire the charges, so I'll stay behind to do it myself.
Kablam!
Tommy races the falling debris to save his only daughter and some random kids.
The plan works (this time). The city rejoices. Nevermind that half the city is covered in smoldering lava.
Snarky movie discussion:
CRABS: So Tommy Lee's workaholic attitude is prevalent throughout the film. What do you think this means in the context of his subsequent fight against Mother Nature.
ANG: Well, I think this reflects an Enlightenment view of the world, in which we are constantly evolving and bettering ourselves. To whit, we see that Tommy Lee's commitment to his work is a hindrance to his relationship with his insufferable daughter. However, it is this very flaw which allows him to save the greater LA area. We see, then, that this movie clearly advocates the philosophical position that one's greatest flaw is also one's greatest strength.
CRABS: Question numero 2. There's an obvious sub-current of sexual attraction between Tommy and Anne. And yet this is never really explored in the movie. Do you think this discouraging or encouraging to single parents looking for love?
ANG: I think the movie is ultimately non-committal in this regard. Anne Heche is presented as a strong woman who happens to have a prestigious career in the sciences. However, despite her many successes in this arena, she longs for human companionship. So unfortunately, single parents looking to this movie for inspiration are going to find the message that success can get in the way of love.
CRABS: So Don Cheadle is Tommy's second in command at the emergency whatever center. Clearly he is capable of running the show and longs to do so. Yet the oppressive T-Bone is obviously holding him back. Discuss the relevance of this is light of affirmative action policies.
ANG: I think the movie, being as it is a force for social change, has much to say in this regard. Cheadle's character has not benefited from affirmative action, because he is not in charge. However, his skill set is such that he would not require the aid of such policies. The movie is quite certainly indicating that affirmative action is no longer necessary.
CRABS: As in so many disaster movies, the presence of a world-altering event is the impetus to bring estranged families together again. The implication being that this reunion would not have happened in the absence of said event. Does this mean the social fabric of our country is unraveling around us, and the family as we know it is no longer a relevant cultural institution?
ANG: Without a doubt. Though we can find comfort in the fact that these reunions do happen, they do not occur in an authentic manner. The situations in which they happen are dire ones, and therefore not indicative of a genuine desire to mend the family unit, but rather a misguided desire to fix one's mistakes before death.
CRABS: Once again Los Angeles is the scene of a horrendous cataclysm, which seems to be a recurrign theme in this genre. Is this a covert attempt by the conservative media to portray popular culture as fundamentally corrupt and divisive?
ANG: It's funny you should ask that, because my dissertation is on this very subject.
CRABS: How fortuitous.
ANG: Isn't it, though? Anyway, I think this represents much self-awareness on the part of Hollywood. That is to say, Hollywood is clearly a cesspool or immorality. Yet movies such as this one indicate that denizens of said cesspool know this and are both comfortable with it and conflicted about it.
For next time:
Ang and Crabs tackle a movie (Savage Planet) so bad they are undergoing intensive psychotherapy to forget about it, and blogging is part of the treatment.
Rating: three sticks on the eye (for prolonged lack of plot development).
Plot summary: Tommy takes a break from his long overdue vacation with his estranged daughter to check in on the happenings at the LA Emergency Response Center (or something like that). While he proceeds to neglect his daughter once again, across town totally believable geologist Anne is tooling about as geologists are wont to do and comes across some disturbing findings. Following a horrific subway accident, in which seven people are burned to a crisp, Tommy and Anne are sent to investigate. Thus begins a hazily-defined, ultimately-unrequited (and revolting) romantic interest storyline. They ultimately discover a surging magma chamber which finds in the La Brea tar pits a convenient mode of escape. As missile-like magma and rock fragments rain down upon unsuspecting citizens, Tommy takes it upon himself to initiate a battle against Mother Nature in an attempt to save the city. Somewhere along the way, his daughter is sent to the hospital (to treat a burn or somesuch). Eventually they decide that the lava must he stopped at all costs, at which point the logical solution to the problem is to build a lava barricade out of slabs of concrete. However, undeterred by the beaverish humans, the lava finds another route, at which point only the destruction of a newly-built office tower will divert the lava into the LA River and harmlessly out to sea, therefore ensuring the safety of the city and the continuation of humanity as we know it.
Key moments of interest:
Tommy's daughter arrives. She does not like him. Neither do we.
She's listlessly awaiting the conclusion of her unfulfilling vacation...oh, but wait...
The geological bosom buddies enter the sewers. One is more attractive than the other. Three guesses as to which one leaves unscathed.
Why won't anyone listen to this stunning female scientist?
Tommy can't get enough work even when he's supposed to be on vacation.
"Relax, we've got it under control."
The tar pits are boiling. Nothing to worry about, surely.
All Hell breaks loose! Lava lava everywhere!
Did Tommy seriously just dodge that lava missile?! What a pimp!
It's like Vietnam out here!
Anne and Tommy dangle precariously from a ladder. Miraculously they survive, escaping by the skin of their teeth.
Little Whiner Jones gets shipped off to the hospital where she finds her inner woman.
"Let's get these barriers up and stop this lava, dammit! They're our only hope!"
Remarkably, this ingenious plan doesn't work. The lava remains on the move.
Heart-rending Good Samaritan sacrifice number 1. Did that guy just walk on lava?
Second ingenious plan. Let's blow up this here building and make another dam.
Heart-rending Good Samaritan sacrifice number 2. There's no time to wire the charges, so I'll stay behind to do it myself.
Kablam!
Tommy races the falling debris to save his only daughter and some random kids.
The plan works (this time). The city rejoices. Nevermind that half the city is covered in smoldering lava.
Snarky movie discussion:
CRABS: So Tommy Lee's workaholic attitude is prevalent throughout the film. What do you think this means in the context of his subsequent fight against Mother Nature.
ANG: Well, I think this reflects an Enlightenment view of the world, in which we are constantly evolving and bettering ourselves. To whit, we see that Tommy Lee's commitment to his work is a hindrance to his relationship with his insufferable daughter. However, it is this very flaw which allows him to save the greater LA area. We see, then, that this movie clearly advocates the philosophical position that one's greatest flaw is also one's greatest strength.
CRABS: Question numero 2. There's an obvious sub-current of sexual attraction between Tommy and Anne. And yet this is never really explored in the movie. Do you think this discouraging or encouraging to single parents looking for love?
ANG: I think the movie is ultimately non-committal in this regard. Anne Heche is presented as a strong woman who happens to have a prestigious career in the sciences. However, despite her many successes in this arena, she longs for human companionship. So unfortunately, single parents looking to this movie for inspiration are going to find the message that success can get in the way of love.
CRABS: So Don Cheadle is Tommy's second in command at the emergency whatever center. Clearly he is capable of running the show and longs to do so. Yet the oppressive T-Bone is obviously holding him back. Discuss the relevance of this is light of affirmative action policies.
ANG: I think the movie, being as it is a force for social change, has much to say in this regard. Cheadle's character has not benefited from affirmative action, because he is not in charge. However, his skill set is such that he would not require the aid of such policies. The movie is quite certainly indicating that affirmative action is no longer necessary.
CRABS: As in so many disaster movies, the presence of a world-altering event is the impetus to bring estranged families together again. The implication being that this reunion would not have happened in the absence of said event. Does this mean the social fabric of our country is unraveling around us, and the family as we know it is no longer a relevant cultural institution?
ANG: Without a doubt. Though we can find comfort in the fact that these reunions do happen, they do not occur in an authentic manner. The situations in which they happen are dire ones, and therefore not indicative of a genuine desire to mend the family unit, but rather a misguided desire to fix one's mistakes before death.
CRABS: Once again Los Angeles is the scene of a horrendous cataclysm, which seems to be a recurrign theme in this genre. Is this a covert attempt by the conservative media to portray popular culture as fundamentally corrupt and divisive?
ANG: It's funny you should ask that, because my dissertation is on this very subject.
CRABS: How fortuitous.
ANG: Isn't it, though? Anyway, I think this represents much self-awareness on the part of Hollywood. That is to say, Hollywood is clearly a cesspool or immorality. Yet movies such as this one indicate that denizens of said cesspool know this and are both comfortable with it and conflicted about it.
For next time:
Ang and Crabs tackle a movie (Savage Planet) so bad they are undergoing intensive psychotherapy to forget about it, and blogging is part of the treatment.
Rating: three sticks on the eye (for prolonged lack of plot development).
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Core -- A Journey to the Center of Inanity
Facts: The year was 2003. Three years previous, the world had failed to come to an end. The release of this movie was surely punishment for all of humanity. Starring two rising stars (at least until the movie came out), Aaron (Two-Face) Eckhart and Hilary (Million Dollar) Swank, The Core is a veritable fruitcake of fantasy science, political wrangling, white-knuckled space shuttle piloting, and emotionally draining moral conundrums.
Plot summary: The core of the Earth has stopped spinning. Really. Why? The answer will shock you! As is often the case in history, a cobbled-together group consisting of a disgraced shuttle pilot looking for redemption and a zany group of misfit scientists, is the only thing that stands between us and total annihilation by solar radiation. (For years man has yearned to destroy the sun...) An improbable craft takes them on an improbable journey to deliver a nuclear blast. Some are lost along the way. Some find themselves. Some persevere. And, as is always the case, humanity soldiers on.
Key moments of interest:
Can space shuttles really land in the LA river? Does it matter? (Swank at her finest.)
The pompous asshole summarizes doomsday scenario for president.
Young brash scientist dazzles his students with a ultra-detailed chalkboard drawing. (OMG! Your assistant's a Cylon!)
"Come with us, sir. Don't ask any questions." (All government goons sound the same.)
Why won't anyone believe this ruggedly handsome up and coming scientific superstar?
"I'll do it, but on my own terms." (Plenty of scientists talk like this, I'm sure.)
Meanwhile out in the desert, an outcast scientist with too much metal and time on his hands constructs a very special ship.
It's made of Unobtanium! (Ha ha.) And sonic lasers.
Hottie McAstronaut (Swank) just can't get it right. If only someone would encourage her.
Here we go! Is this going to work? I certainly hope so. (It's an action move. Of course it'll work.)
Ship gets stuck on crystal. First heart-wrenching sacrifice occurs. (Cue tissues.)
We've gotta get those nuke codes. At any cost. Sacrifice #2. (And of course it's the French guy.)
And after all this trouble, they realize it's not going to work. The plan is flawed.
Some goobeldly gook later, and a solution is found.
Third sacrifice. But this guy sucks, so it's okay.
Success comes with a price. And some fooling around (maybe).
Lava tube roller coaster. Destination: the surface of the Earth.
Cue heroic music. Will humanity ever learn?
Snarky movie discussion:
ANG: Do you feel that the movie's overriding video game feel says something about our current over-reliance on technology?
CRABS: Well, I think the answer is ultimately a definitive maybe. Here's why. For all of their technology and modern hubris, our heroes ultimately rely upon their own courage and the indomitable spirit which drives them to greatness in order to complete their task. So as a result of this, I see technology not in addition to humanity, but as augmenting humanity's collective consciousness.
ANG: Some have claimed that this movie is full of junk science. Do you feel as if this is the case, and if so, does it detract from the movie's moral lessons for us all?
CRABS: Junk science -- I say balderdash to that. I see the role of cinema in society as one of empowerment, inspiration, and futurity. So in this sense I feel the movie is doing what it was intended, and while some of the scientific principles present in this film are ambitious, they set a definitive standard of excellence that I think our modern scientists would do well to attain. As for the morality of the science, I've always thought that science and morality went hand-in-hand. For to be a scientific man is to be a thinking man. And to be a thinking man is to be a moral man. Ergo, science equals morality.
ANG: Do you feel as if Unobtanium is intended to be a metaphor for the continual triumph of the human spirit?
CRABS: Undoubtedly. For the principle characteristic of Unobtainum is that the more pressure it's subjected to, the stronger it becomes. I can't think of a more eloquent or poetic illustration of the will of man to dominate the natural world.
ANG: What do you feel this movie has to say about the unfortunate economic realities in which we currently find ourselves?
CRABS: Well, clearly the lasseiz-faire manner in which the government conducted seismic tests that possibly stopped the core's rotation, therefore dooming humanity, is a clear parallel to the wanton disregard for prudence and foresight which permeates nearly every level of our financial institutions. Both situations, not coincidentally, seem to be remedied through increased oversight and scientific ingenuity.
ANG: So are you suggesting that this movie advocates a return to Keynesian economic policies?
CRABS: No, because that's socialist crap. Shut your liberal face, your Karl Marx loving Cuban cigar smoking Chairman Mao worshipping pinko.
ANG: I think we've gotten off track here...
For next time: Ang and Crabs tackle another classic: the epic disaster movie Volcano.
Rating: four sticks in the eye (and a fondue fork, too).
Plot summary: The core of the Earth has stopped spinning. Really. Why? The answer will shock you! As is often the case in history, a cobbled-together group consisting of a disgraced shuttle pilot looking for redemption and a zany group of misfit scientists, is the only thing that stands between us and total annihilation by solar radiation. (For years man has yearned to destroy the sun...) An improbable craft takes them on an improbable journey to deliver a nuclear blast. Some are lost along the way. Some find themselves. Some persevere. And, as is always the case, humanity soldiers on.
Key moments of interest:
Can space shuttles really land in the LA river? Does it matter? (Swank at her finest.)
The pompous asshole summarizes doomsday scenario for president.
Young brash scientist dazzles his students with a ultra-detailed chalkboard drawing. (OMG! Your assistant's a Cylon!)
"Come with us, sir. Don't ask any questions." (All government goons sound the same.)
Why won't anyone believe this ruggedly handsome up and coming scientific superstar?
"I'll do it, but on my own terms." (Plenty of scientists talk like this, I'm sure.)
Meanwhile out in the desert, an outcast scientist with too much metal and time on his hands constructs a very special ship.
It's made of Unobtanium! (Ha ha.) And sonic lasers.
Hottie McAstronaut (Swank) just can't get it right. If only someone would encourage her.
Here we go! Is this going to work? I certainly hope so. (It's an action move. Of course it'll work.)
Ship gets stuck on crystal. First heart-wrenching sacrifice occurs. (Cue tissues.)
We've gotta get those nuke codes. At any cost. Sacrifice #2. (And of course it's the French guy.)
And after all this trouble, they realize it's not going to work. The plan is flawed.
Some goobeldly gook later, and a solution is found.
Third sacrifice. But this guy sucks, so it's okay.
Success comes with a price. And some fooling around (maybe).
Lava tube roller coaster. Destination: the surface of the Earth.
Cue heroic music. Will humanity ever learn?
Snarky movie discussion:
ANG: Do you feel that the movie's overriding video game feel says something about our current over-reliance on technology?
CRABS: Well, I think the answer is ultimately a definitive maybe. Here's why. For all of their technology and modern hubris, our heroes ultimately rely upon their own courage and the indomitable spirit which drives them to greatness in order to complete their task. So as a result of this, I see technology not in addition to humanity, but as augmenting humanity's collective consciousness.
ANG: Some have claimed that this movie is full of junk science. Do you feel as if this is the case, and if so, does it detract from the movie's moral lessons for us all?
CRABS: Junk science -- I say balderdash to that. I see the role of cinema in society as one of empowerment, inspiration, and futurity. So in this sense I feel the movie is doing what it was intended, and while some of the scientific principles present in this film are ambitious, they set a definitive standard of excellence that I think our modern scientists would do well to attain. As for the morality of the science, I've always thought that science and morality went hand-in-hand. For to be a scientific man is to be a thinking man. And to be a thinking man is to be a moral man. Ergo, science equals morality.
ANG: Do you feel as if Unobtanium is intended to be a metaphor for the continual triumph of the human spirit?
CRABS: Undoubtedly. For the principle characteristic of Unobtainum is that the more pressure it's subjected to, the stronger it becomes. I can't think of a more eloquent or poetic illustration of the will of man to dominate the natural world.
ANG: What do you feel this movie has to say about the unfortunate economic realities in which we currently find ourselves?
CRABS: Well, clearly the lasseiz-faire manner in which the government conducted seismic tests that possibly stopped the core's rotation, therefore dooming humanity, is a clear parallel to the wanton disregard for prudence and foresight which permeates nearly every level of our financial institutions. Both situations, not coincidentally, seem to be remedied through increased oversight and scientific ingenuity.
ANG: So are you suggesting that this movie advocates a return to Keynesian economic policies?
CRABS: No, because that's socialist crap. Shut your liberal face, your Karl Marx loving Cuban cigar smoking Chairman Mao worshipping pinko.
ANG: I think we've gotten off track here...
For next time: Ang and Crabs tackle another classic: the epic disaster movie Volcano.
Rating: four sticks in the eye (and a fondue fork, too).
Monday, May 4, 2009
Deep Impact -- or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Asteroid.
Facts: released in 1998; starring a youthful Elijah Wood, soon-to-be Mrs. David Duchovny (Tea Leoni), and an always-wise Morgan Freeman (the pre-Obama).
The year was 1998. The mood of the county was optimistic yet restrained. Two dueling Hollywood blockbusters (with the same dubious premise) were released during the summer. One of them starred Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis, and featured a godawful Aerosmith song...but we're not talking about that one -- yet. For at the same time that this movie was disgracing American theaters, its red-headed stepbrother of a movie was underwhelming the box office and disappointing fans across the nation.
Plot summary: Killer asteroid from beyond known time and space sets its sights on our humble home. What could possibly defeat this astronomical evil? Nothing, as it turns out. But in the meantime, we're treated to an interstellar voyage of redemption and the triumph of the human spirit. Not to mention a ridiculously contrived subplot involving stupid teens who get married. Basically, the idea is to drill holes into this asteroid (after landing on it, which is just so believable) and exploding it with nuclear warheads. When this fails, it's a no-holds-barred save yourself fest in a race against time.
Key moments of interest:
Will nobody pay attention to this 14-year-old amateur astronomer?
Morgan Freeman's the president, OMG!
The best simulation NASA can afford is a toy shuttle on a stick and a globe.
Those plucky astronauts grin and bear it for the good of humanity.
This one has no slow astronaut walk...which makes it extra-lame.
The obligatory training montage, however, remains.
Where once there was one (asteroid), now there are two. Oops.
Two teens get married...and somehow it's supposed to be compelling. Is that even legal?
I guess we're hosed...now what?
Well, it's a good thing we built these underground bunkers just in case, huh?
Mrs. David Duchovny and her estranged father take on the ocean...and lose.
Tidal waves are big, mkay?
Mr. and Mrs. Frodo steal a dirt bike and head for the hills.
3...2....1...impact! (Kabloom!) Good-bye, east coast.
Wow, I guess that wasn't as bad as we thought. Humanity perseveres. (Though it's almost too bad if they're going to continue to make movies like this.)
Snarky movie discussion:
CRABS: Does the obligatory estranged father subplot make this movie even a tad more interesting?
ANG: Without a doubt. It was the lynch pin subplot of the movie...and the emotional hook that kept me watching.
CRABS: If by lynch pin, you mean the pipe that carries to the toilet water to the processing plant, I would have to agree. Do you think that her father's remarrying a younger woman typifies our current obsession with new technology and latest fads?
ANG: Without a doubt. The acquisition of, in this case, a newer, younger model of wife, is an obvious metaphor for how we as a society devalue anything that isn't bright and shiny.
CRABS: Her father finally reconciles with her when his new wife leaves him. What do you think this means about the importance of a strong male role model in today's modern family? In particular, a strong male presence a matter of necessity or convenience?
ANG: I think it's both. As we see in the movie, Leoni's character does just fine without her father, at least career-wise. Clearly, a woman does not need a man just as a fish does not need a bicycle. However, as we see at the end of the movie, it is the love of her father which allows her to face her impending demise with grace and dignity. So at this point, this presence is a matter of necessity.
CRABS: Leoni's mother ends up taking her own life so as to die on her own terms. What do you think this says about the role of fate and pre-ordination in our lives?
ANG: Well, it's funny you should ask that. Most likely, had her mother not taken her own life, she would've died when the little asteroid hit the east coast. So in this way, she was accepting her own mortality. That said, her reason for doing so, which we are led to believe is her own loneliness, makes her seem a bit weak. She has chosen this end for herself, but at what cost? I would say the cost is her self-respect.
For next time: Tune in soon when Ang and Crabs tackle another movie great...The Core! (Great, of course, being a relative term.)
Rating: two sticks in the eye (bad but watchable)
The year was 1998. The mood of the county was optimistic yet restrained. Two dueling Hollywood blockbusters (with the same dubious premise) were released during the summer. One of them starred Ben Affleck and Bruce Willis, and featured a godawful Aerosmith song...but we're not talking about that one -- yet. For at the same time that this movie was disgracing American theaters, its red-headed stepbrother of a movie was underwhelming the box office and disappointing fans across the nation.
Plot summary: Killer asteroid from beyond known time and space sets its sights on our humble home. What could possibly defeat this astronomical evil? Nothing, as it turns out. But in the meantime, we're treated to an interstellar voyage of redemption and the triumph of the human spirit. Not to mention a ridiculously contrived subplot involving stupid teens who get married. Basically, the idea is to drill holes into this asteroid (after landing on it, which is just so believable) and exploding it with nuclear warheads. When this fails, it's a no-holds-barred save yourself fest in a race against time.
Key moments of interest:
Will nobody pay attention to this 14-year-old amateur astronomer?
Morgan Freeman's the president, OMG!
The best simulation NASA can afford is a toy shuttle on a stick and a globe.
Those plucky astronauts grin and bear it for the good of humanity.
This one has no slow astronaut walk...which makes it extra-lame.
The obligatory training montage, however, remains.
Where once there was one (asteroid), now there are two. Oops.
Two teens get married...and somehow it's supposed to be compelling. Is that even legal?
I guess we're hosed...now what?
Well, it's a good thing we built these underground bunkers just in case, huh?
Mrs. David Duchovny and her estranged father take on the ocean...and lose.
Tidal waves are big, mkay?
Mr. and Mrs. Frodo steal a dirt bike and head for the hills.
3...2....1...impact! (Kabloom!) Good-bye, east coast.
Wow, I guess that wasn't as bad as we thought. Humanity perseveres. (Though it's almost too bad if they're going to continue to make movies like this.)
Snarky movie discussion:
CRABS: Does the obligatory estranged father subplot make this movie even a tad more interesting?
ANG: Without a doubt. It was the lynch pin subplot of the movie...and the emotional hook that kept me watching.
CRABS: If by lynch pin, you mean the pipe that carries to the toilet water to the processing plant, I would have to agree. Do you think that her father's remarrying a younger woman typifies our current obsession with new technology and latest fads?
ANG: Without a doubt. The acquisition of, in this case, a newer, younger model of wife, is an obvious metaphor for how we as a society devalue anything that isn't bright and shiny.
CRABS: Her father finally reconciles with her when his new wife leaves him. What do you think this means about the importance of a strong male role model in today's modern family? In particular, a strong male presence a matter of necessity or convenience?
ANG: I think it's both. As we see in the movie, Leoni's character does just fine without her father, at least career-wise. Clearly, a woman does not need a man just as a fish does not need a bicycle. However, as we see at the end of the movie, it is the love of her father which allows her to face her impending demise with grace and dignity. So at this point, this presence is a matter of necessity.
CRABS: Leoni's mother ends up taking her own life so as to die on her own terms. What do you think this says about the role of fate and pre-ordination in our lives?
ANG: Well, it's funny you should ask that. Most likely, had her mother not taken her own life, she would've died when the little asteroid hit the east coast. So in this way, she was accepting her own mortality. That said, her reason for doing so, which we are led to believe is her own loneliness, makes her seem a bit weak. She has chosen this end for herself, but at what cost? I would say the cost is her self-respect.
For next time: Tune in soon when Ang and Crabs tackle another movie great...The Core! (Great, of course, being a relative term.)
Rating: two sticks in the eye (bad but watchable)
Welcome to the Psychotronic Lounge...
Once upon a time in a college far, far away, during the bleak and dreary month of December, two slackers received the greatest Christmas present possible. Little did they know an obscure yet seminal film by the name of Soul Vengeance would change the course of their lives. This initial brush with greatness would sow a seed of appreciation for the worst that cinema had to offer.
Because we feel that the public discourse on bad movies is woefully lacking, we've taken it upon ourselves to fill the void with our snark. Some of you may be wondering why two unemployed people are sitting around watching movies all day instead of, say, bettering society. We think that we are, in fact, enlightening the public about the cinematic options available to them.
Some of the movies we discuss will make you laugh. (Okay, most of them.) Some of them will make you cry. (Again, most of them.) Some of them will teach you life lessons...just like Soul Vengeance did for us so many years ago.
Because we feel that the public discourse on bad movies is woefully lacking, we've taken it upon ourselves to fill the void with our snark. Some of you may be wondering why two unemployed people are sitting around watching movies all day instead of, say, bettering society. We think that we are, in fact, enlightening the public about the cinematic options available to them.
Some of the movies we discuss will make you laugh. (Okay, most of them.) Some of them will make you cry. (Again, most of them.) Some of them will teach you life lessons...just like Soul Vengeance did for us so many years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
