Slashdot Mirror
The Worst That Can Happen, And Something Better
In theory, Martin Lawrence (here playing good-hearted thief Kevin Caffery) should have made a great John Dortmunder, the sleazy but sweet hero of Donald Westlake's book, also played by Robert Redford in l972's Hot Rock, an earlier adaptation of the novel What's The Worst That Can Happen?.
Do not waste your money on this movie. Hardly a single thing about it works. It isn't funny. DeVito and Lawrence are wooden, predictable and uncomfortable together, and the supporting cast is better but strangely off kilter, with the notable exception of comedian Bernie Mac (Uncle Jack), who steals the movie, or what's left of it.
Westlake has always specialized in the petty, low-stakes sleaziness that ought to be perfect for DeVito and Lawrence. Lawrence plays an incompetent professional thief who becomes obsessed with a billionnaire, Max Fairbanks (DeVito). Fairbanks catches Caffery burglarizing his Massachusetts mansion, calls the cops and steals the thief's good luck ring, recently given him by the new love of his life (Carmen Ejogo playing Amber Bellhaven). The superstitious Fairbanks decides the ring is magical, and decides to keep it at all costs. Caffery initially wants the ring back because of Amber, but, like Fairbanks, ends up wanting it back mostly because he can't stand the thought of the other besting him. So the two set off robbing, pursuing and setting traps for one another as their lives spiral out of control.
Both major actors are playing to their specialty -- DeVito as the obnoxious, insecure, braying short guy proving that he's tough, Lawrence as the nicer but bungling protagonist. But what worked in Get Shorty or even, to some degree in Big Momma's House doesn't work here. Both actors seem to be phoning it in, perhaps repelled by this clunky script and overwhelmed by the funnier but bizarre supporting cast. Mac is great as Caffery's fence. The West Wing's sad-eyed Richard Schiff play's Max's eye-rolling lawyer, and William Fichtner does a funny but distracting turn as a wildly flamboyant Boston police detective.
On the other side of the cinematic spectrum is Moulin Rouge, from the people who brought you Romeo and Juliet. This is a feverish, psychedelic love/story musical set in Bohemian Paris and done almost entirely via spectacular computer animation, apart from the acting performances of Ewan MacGregor and Nicole Kidman (he's great, she's not). It's way too long, and completely unpredictable.
There would really be no point in describing the plot. The movie veers from loopy to moving to strikingly original to undisciplined -- definitely worth a look, though, especially if you want to keep up with animation.
Chris Cunningham (video director) was supposed to me making it, but the site's down.
HTH
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Can he be serious?
What is Katz on?
Shrek and Final Fantasy - THAT is computer animation.
Mouline Rouge is very much live action in sets and models with plenty of touchups and some fancy editing.
--
The site wasn't an official site (sanctioned by Seven Arts)... Check out Director File for more information on the movie...
Luckily, the movie is still supposed to come out... Check here and especially here for more information on it...
Going through some bumps, though...
Moulin Rouge's story is a retelling of the story of Orpheus. In short, the man is an amazing musician who goes down in to the underworld to bring his dead wife back in to the living. No one else was ever able to do this, but Orpheus is able to succeed by his musical talents. There is more to the story, as I'm sure many people know, but that's why it's predictable: you've heard the story itself a billion times before in different forms.
But it doesn't matter because Baz Luhrmann manages to retell the story in his own way that is very charming and funny and psychotic all at once. Everyone who's seen Strictly Ballroom or his version of Romeo and Juliet (the DiCaprio and Danes one) knows that his style is very fast paced and crazy, but visually stunning. That works perfectly in this film, which isn't meant to be taken as reality but as a depiction of a supernatural place, like in the tale of Orpheus. The plot is sappy, but it doesn't matter because it's told with humor and seriousness all at once, in a way that is so amazing visually that you won't believe your eyes.
The familarity of the plot is what allows you to handle the appearances, and the crazy appearances breathe new life in to an old tale. That's what makes this movie great and well worth seeing.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Well, that was useless fluff, even by Katz's usual low standards. So here's where to find some more substantive info about what's good and bad in Moulin Rouge:
Harry at AICN waxes effusive and gushingly positive
Paul Clinton at CNN is somewhat more restrained, but still surprisingly positive considering his usual skepticism about flashy stuff
Rex Reed is absolutely not impressed, and strongly negative
I'm planning on catching the film, based on these reviews. Heck, even if it fails as art I'm willing to support it just because it's trying to do something different and exciting.
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
In day to day life, day to day entertainment, you want something which performs pretty well across the board. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be pretty good and not let you down. Occasionally, you want something that's absolutely perfect, or stunningly original, and you're more than happy to put up with flaws in many of its aspects in exchange for it being truly great in a couple.
Take graphical arts for example. Day to day: we want nice clean layouts; realistic portrayals; easy to find information; smooth shading; whatever makes life easy and comfortable for us in our web layouts, our billboards, our posters. Every so often we go looking for 'art'. In our art we're happy that Van Gough never shades anything smoothly - the effect of his overloaded oils, while by no means realistic, are far more powerful than any airbrushing. In the classic posters of 20s France, the art work on the Can-Can dancers is by no means near-photographic but it is powerful and evocative.
Take the SATs. Someone who gets 700 in each is pretty smart and the kind of person the average company wants to employ. The mathmatics genius who gets 800 in one and 400 in the other probably has none of the social skills, none of the business skills, none of the adaptability we want in the majority of the world, yet having a few of these people is what gives us our geniuses.
Finally, in slashdot terms, take Windows vs Linux. Windows makes every day stuff easy for everyone. Linux makes more stuff possible for a few. Most of the time, most people want Windows but accept it'd be a poorer world without Linux.
That's really what it all comes to. 'Art' generally requires you to accept that you're going to have to work through a lot of the poorer aspects in exchange for some truly incredible ones. Different people have different thresholds - some want the nice safe world and never consider 'art', others like a balance and a few look down at the 'safe' options and only ever consider 'art', even though it's more work for them.
Modern cinema's much the same. Hollywood churns out nice predictable blockbusters - there'll be good SFX, a good sound track, a bunch of photogenic, quite good actors, a quite good story and it'll last a comfortable 90 minutes. They successfully please most of the people, most of the time, which makes them their money and keeps them happy. Occasionally a film has an exceptional story, exceptional acting or exceptional SFX. As a result of all of the work going in to those aspects, it usually falls down everywhere else. To some people that movie's unwatchable for all its failings - they want the nice safe 90 minute hollywood experience. To others it's wonderful, full of discoveries that make the cinema worth going to again and, while it's full of flaws elsewhere, they can overlook them for the exceptional parts.
Moulin Rouge captures the feel of grainy 20s postcards wonderfully, of the cardboard cutout theatre toys children of the era played with. It has intelligent reworkings of just about every piece of modern music (sure, most of it's blasphemous, especially Smells Like Teen Spirit to a Can-Can, but it's also incredibly intelligently done to fit so many different songs in to consistent rhythms and melodies), it has incredible costumes, incredible sets and captures the insanity of the bohemian era. Pretty much everything else is badly done, overblown and under-thought-out.
If you're prepared to forgive a lot of dire points in exchange for a whole set of truly excelent ones, you'll love the movie. If you're the kind of person who wants everything to be nice, safe, and consistently pretty-good, you'll hate it.
Katz didn't go much into Moulin Rouge, which I saw last week at the Ziegfeld (in NYC limited release). It was definitely worth the admission, but be warned that you will have to see the movie on its own terms. Back in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, once you accepted a world where people can jump and fly at will, you could immerse yourself in it and really enjoy yourself. Here, you have to resign yourself to a portrayal of the famous 1900 Paris nightclub Moulin Rouge that is laden with music from the rest of the 20th century -- everything from Kidman trying to upstage Marilyn Monroe's Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend to The Sound of Music and pop hits from the 70s and 80s. Some of the tie-ins -- like when the manager of the night club sings Like a Virgin to explain to the evil investor why starlet Satine (Kidman) won't sleep with him -- seem a bit contrived. But elsewhere, the fusion works, and some scenes had me laughing harder than I've ever laughed in a theater in my life (literally).
Satine falls in love with Ewan MacGregor's character (the force must be with him) as his bohemian team writes and produces a theatrical production for the nightclub. Obvious parallels are drawn between the Kidman-MacGregor relationship and the one within the play, and I sometimes felt the movie borrowed too liberally from Shakespeare in Love. But if enjoyed that movie and are in the mood for an unusual, decade-hopping circus of a film, look no further.
However, do not see this movie if you want to keep up with the progress of computer animation. I have no clue what Katz meant when he said Moulin Rouge is 90% CG -- it isn't even close. Many of the master shots of Paris are CG, or at least models motion-blurred by CG, but definitely see Shrek instead for that kind of volume. Maybe he left after the effects-laden opening. But the best thing I can say along those lines is that the effects here serve the plot and the style. They are a tool for the director (Baz Luhrmann), who uses them when he needs them, and not for the sake of using them.
Moulin Rouge is dazzling fun, but you may want to bring some dramamaine.
--------------------------------
You know, I've seen so much staffer bashing on Slashdot (especially of reviews) that it's getting irritating. People, Katz, Taco, et al have their opinions, and you have yours. In case you hadn't guessed, that's why Slashdot exists - so that people can actually discuss new articles. But saying a staffer is stupid or gay or whatever is childish, and disrespectful. These articles - especially the reviews - require a good deal of time and effort. Slashdot is a free service, and the people who run it (even though they are paid) deserve our respect, or at least courtesy.
I'm the stranger...posting to