Tech Blog

[#1]

I heard that Apple announced a new picture box today. Since my understanding of new technology is somewhere around the “clap on, clap off” level, I’ll leave discussion of Apple’s new whatchimawhoozle to more qualified people, and simply talk about what I know best.

Crazy Heart directed by Scott Cooper.

When it comes to the Oscars, the savy film watcher starts to get an idea in January and February which movies will be getting statue love the following year. Last year at around this time, movies like Precious and Up In The Air were starting to get talked about as possible contenders, and it looks like both movies will get nominations next week. Crazy Heart is the rare exception, and it’s a movie that nobody was really talking about until a screening in October. Since then, the accolades have been coming in fast and furious, with most of them going to Jeff Bridges.

Considering all the buzz, my question is: Why isn’t this movie better?

This isn’t a bad film. Not by any stretch. But I’ve seen it before. So have you. You saw it when it was called The Wrestler. I saw it when it was called A Star Is Born. Twice.  Grizzled veteran is down on his luck and finally hits bottom. That’s it. That’s Crazy Heart, and while it’s told moderately well here, there’s nothing new, and there’s nothing  that’s special enough to declare this a must watch. Part of the problem is that the highs and lows of the movie aren’t very high, or very low. Bridge’s Bad Blake never was the star that Rourke’s Randy was, and his fall from grace isn’t nearly as heartwrenching as Kristofferson’s was in A Star is Born.

Bridges deserves a lot of the attention he’s getting here, but if he wins a Best Actor for this, it’ll be for Big Lebowski and for his other work. He does a nice job, but the movie drags him down. While Rourke’s performance in the Wrestler made a good movie great, Bridge’s work here only serves to make an average movie good. In addition, the relationship between Bridge’s character and the one played by Maggie Gyllenhal was implausible at best, and embarrassing at worst. The real reason to watch this movie is the music. T-Bone Burnett does his usual exemplary job in creating the perfect music to accompany this film, and he truly makes you believe that Bad Blake was the greatest country songwriter you never heard of.

Rating: C+

Daybreakers, directed by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig.

I love good vampire movies. I love ‘em like Steve Jobs loves making me spend money.

Unfortunately we haven’t seen a great vampire movie in a while. Instead we’ve being given bad teen romance movies with very good looking thin people that spend two hours giving each other smoldering glances that PRETEND to be vampire movies.  

I’m happy to announce that Daybreakers is not only a real vampire movie, it’s also a good vampire movie.

The year is 2019, ten years after a virus turned most of earth’s population into vampires. The only problem is: No more blood.

This is a B genre movie, with all the good and bad that that entails. Like Avatar, it’s firmly unapologetic in it’s geekiness. Unlike Avatar, it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Like all great B movies, there’s a lot of goofiness here, and the script could have definitely used some touch ups. But all in all this is a fun, slightly campy thriller that I would recommend to any serious genre fan.

Rating: B+

[#2]

I'm considering going and seeing Daybreakers... glad to see you've given it a B+ as that may just tip it in the right direction. 

I'm not usually one to see movies in the theatre, but this is one that just seems to me like it'd be better in the theatre on the big screen with the proper sound systems, etc.

Thanks Tim!

[#3]

Have you had a chance to see Sherlock Holmes? I am interested to get your take on Guy Ritchie's new film.

[#4]

Yes, I've seen it. I can't say I loved it, but I liked far more than I thought I would. Nice to see Guy Ritchie playing in some one else's sandbox for a change. I'd probably give it a C+ or so?