Kiss Kiss Bang Bang review

This is a repost of a review I originally wrote back in 2005.

To call Kiss Kiss Bang Bang “brilliant” would be an understatement. To put it simply enough, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of the finest movies to be released in quite some time and one of the funniest as well.

In Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, bumbling crook Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) is shot running from a toy store burglary, leaving his partner behind worse for wear in an ally. Harry only escapes police pursuit by ducking into a random door, which happens to be hosting a movie audition. Harry aces the audition, about a crook that leaves his wounded partner behind, by really getting into character, crying and screaming. The producers think he’s using “Method Acting” to get into character but in fact he’s simply reacting to that night’s events.

Harry finds himself out in L.A. to audition for studio executives and meets “Gay” Perry (Val Kilmer), a private detective hired to coach Harry on his upcoming audition who, as his name/nick-name so quaintly says, happens to be gay.

Harry accompanies Perry on a case observing a cabin in the woods where the two stumble across the murder of a woman locked in a trunk of a car driven into a lake. It quickly becomes apparent that the whole thing’s a set-up meant to pin the body on Harry and Perry. And when the sister of a woman Harry met at a party whom Harry knew as a child in Indiana turns up dead via suicide, everything starts to make sense. Or does it?

In Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, character Harry narrates the movie at times literally stopping the action in its tracks, skipping around in time and scene spouting lines like, “How ’bout it, filmgoer? Have you solved the case of the – the dead people in L.A.?” At other times, Harry breaks the fourth wall commenting on the movie as it plays out on the screen. Harry remarks that he hates tacked on Hollywood endings where people who should be dead from their wounds turn up alive at the end of the movie, and that why doesn’t everyone who died in the movie come back? With that, the door of Harry’s room opens and every character killed during the preceding two hours walks in as if they were at a family reunion. Then, to cap it all off, an actor wearing a very bad Abe Lincoln costume walks through the door, then Elvis…

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang feels as if the movie Lethal Weapon were written by someone who had worked on the television series Arrested Development – it has that sort of irrelevance for the genre as well as letting the audience in on the joke. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang isn’t a send-up of the genre like a Naked Gun or Airplane; it’s simply a take on it.

In fact, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was written and directed by Shane Black, writer and creator of the Lethal Weapon franchise. In the movie, Black takes the characters and concepts he first introduced nearly twenty years, dissects and twists them into something new, funny, unique and brilliant. (10/10)

The Second (Third?) Coming of Star Trek

I’ve found that it’s hard to come to terms with how popular some things are these days. When I was growing up the series Star Trek, which originally aired 50 years ago next month, wasn’t exactly popular. Where I lived, episodes of the original series aired weekdays before Little House on the Prairie and while there were Star Trek movies in theaters that did well enough at the box office to warrant a slew of sequels, I wouldn’t exactly have called Star Trek “cool” then.

tngcrewIn the 1980s, people who were into the series were derided as “Trekkies” and were considered to be nerds and losers because of their devotion to a series that had, at that time, been off the air for decades. And when new episodes of Star Trek returned to TV in 1987 with Star Trek: The Next Generation the series wasn’t considered good enough to air on a network and instead was shown in syndication. Which meant that the series was airing at different times and on different channels depending on where you lived. I remember TNG aired on a local non-affiliate station at the inviting hour of 9AM Sunday mornings which meant the series was basically filler since I can’t imagine Sunday morning makes for “appointment TV.”

For a moment in the mid–1990s just before TNG left the TV for feature films it felt like Star Trek was slightly cool — especially with two Star Trek series airing together then with TNG and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and then later a second TNG movie Star Trek: First Contact (1996) that was actually quite good.

leave_behind_476But it wasn’t too long before Star Trek would once again be relegated to the back of mind for most people as the quality of the feature films began to slip with the film series ending in 2002 and two more Star Trek series Star Trek: Voyager and Enterprise that never caught on with the general public or a majority of sci-fi fans.

All seemed lost for Star Trek until it was announced that a new movie was in the works by JJ Abrams who, at the time, was known as the guy who created the series Felicity and Alias, had a hand in the TV series Lost and had co-written and directed Mission: Impossible III (2006).

Abrams new movies would feature the original characters like Kirk and Spock from the first series but in all-new adventures and in an all-new and different universe that had a harder edge than before.

Being a Trekkie, I was super-excited about these new films and saw Star Trek (2009) the minute it was released and couldn’t have been more disappointed when I left the theater. Simply put, the story of the 2009 Star Trek had too many plot holes to count meaning there were large parts of that movie that simply did not make sense. I left the theater feeling dejected, thinking that this version of Star Trek would put the franchise on the back-burner again and we’d have to wait 10 years for new Star Trek.

latestBut that movie actually did quite well and another Star Trek movie, Star Trek: Into Darkness was released in 2013. Was that movie any good? I don’t know, you’ll have to tell me — I didn’t bother seeing it after the my disappointment of the first.

And the latest Abramsverse Star Trek movie, Star Trek Beyond, opened to a decent box office a few weeks back and was the number one movie in the US on its release. Still, if I ever end up seeing Beyond it’ll be because Simon Pegg, whom I greatly admire, had a hand in crafting the script and not because I’m a fan of the latest movie series.

But there has been a ray of hope in the Star Trek franchise of late — another TV series is in the works. This new Star Trek is being co-created by Bryan Fuller who most recently was responsible for the wonderful Hannibal TV series. Star Trek: Discovery is set to start airing January, 2017 but other than the first episode won’t actually be shown on TV, it’ll be the cornerstone of CBS’ $6 a month online streaming service.

Direct Beam Comms #36

TV

Stranger Things – Grade: A

6f1c7f40664543.5787e03bf042cEvery so often a series comes along that’s so good and unexpected that’s like a bolt of lighting to the head — and this year that series is Stranger Things on Netflix.

Stranger Things takes place in the fictional small town of Hawkins, Indiana in 1983 where one dark and stormy night a boy goes missing while at the same time a mysterious girl known as “11” or “El” for short (Millie Brown) appears. El isn’t quite normal — she can only speak in very short words/sentences, is wearing only hospital garb and, most of weirdly of all, has telekinetic powers. On her trail is Dr. Martin Brenner (Matthew Modine) who was trying to use El’s powers for his own purposes and wants his property returned. But on El’s side are a group of misfit boys who’re looking for their missing friend while at the same time discovering just what El’s capable of.

Best of all Stranger Things stars the wonderful Winona Ryder playing the missing kids mother, David Harbour as the town sheriff and Natalia Dyer as Nancy, Shannon Purser as Barb, Charlie Heaton as Jonathan…

I think that’s the first thing that Stranger Things co-creators the Duffer Brothers got right — they had a great cast and great characters. And let that to be a lesson to other series creators out there: if you have a great cast and great characters you’re more than halfway to having a classic series.

And that’s exactly what Stranger Things is: a modern day classic.

Stranger Things has taken flack from some corners saying that it’s a nostalgia driven show. That it borrows too freely from what’s come before and isn’t that original. Which is totally true. But only if those same people who ding Stranger Things for taking elements from what’s come before are also willing to ding things like the band The Rolling Stones from feely borrowing from the blues or Nirvana from punk.

I’ve never understood why when bands “borrow” from the past and are successful they can be considered top acts, but when movies or TV series do the same thing — well, apparently those are only supposed to be completely original, new and unique.

Which is total hooey. Is there anything these days that’s totally new and unique?

Sure, Stranger Things borrows elements from the works of Stephen King and some of the visual stylings of Steven Spielberg — though much less than talk and internet marketing would lead you to believe. It also uses elements from slasher horror movies of the 1980s, especially how some of their scenes are constructed, and a bit from the manga/film Akira too.

Which, admittedly, could be the recipe for disaster. Except here what the Duffer Brothers did with Stranger Things was rather than to just copy those elements they created something new with them. Stranger Things shares no direct link with any Stephen King story but it feels like it could, and the same goes with the films of Steven Spielberg too. There are certainly visual cues from Spielberg’s movies like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Stand By Me here, but on the whole Stranger Things is its own thing that’s building upon previous works of others.

Just like The Rolling Stones and just like Nirvana and just like 1,000 other pop culture things have built new things on the previous works of others.

My only concern with Stranger Things is that recently Neflix has strongly hinted that a second season of the series will soon be in the works. My concern is that the first season ended so perfectly that it’s this brilliant encapsulated story with just the right amount of questions answered and, more importantly, unanswered. I’d hate to see the Duffer Brothers come back and do a season two of the series that was a let down to the first. I’m not sure I want or need all the questions raised in the first season to be answered. Some things are better left to the imagination.

Then again, what do I know? Here I am giving suggestions about a series I hadn’t even heard about a few months ago that knocked my socks off this summer. My guess is that whatever the Duffer Brothers do next is going to be interesting regardless of which angle they take to tell it.

Now I feel like I need to go re-watch/read the Akira series and the movie The Mist again to keep on this Stranger Things high!

Angie Tribeca season 2 – Grade: B

angie-tribeca-tbs_article_story_largeThe second season of the TBS series Angie Tribeca finished this week. I enjoy this goofy series that’s in the vein of an Airplane or Naked Gun but I think I enjoyed the first season a bit more. The second season of the Angie Tribeca told a season long throughout all the episodes which felt a little forced to me. The series is essentially a comedy where goofy fun takes precedence over plot but having a season long story means that plot becomes important.

I think where Angie Tribeca works well is when the episodes are just off the wall humor where literally anything can happen between scene to scene let alone episode to episode, so to have to follow the plot to a story was a bit constraining.

A third season of Angie Tribeca is set to debut sometime in 2017 and I’m genuinely interested to see where the series goes from here.

Animal Kingdom season 1 – Grade: B-

14ANIMALS-master768The last year has seen a slew of darker series that all takes place in California. Always before California series used to focus on the sun, beaches and fun of the state but lately a lot of series have been taking place in a much different version of California. These bleaker series focus on a dirty, and dangerous place that’s as likely to give you a staph infection from swimming in the polluted waves as send you home in a body bag when you’re caught in the middle of a drug/guns/whatever deal gone wrong.

These are series I call “California Dark” like True Detective, Flaked, Sons of Anarchy and Animal Kingdom, the first season of which wrapped up last week on TNT.

Animal Kingdom, based on the Australian movie of the same name, follows the Cody family who live in Oceanside, California and make their living by stealing and robbing from unsuspecting folks. Thrown into this den is “J” (Finn Cole), forced to live with his uncles and a matriarch nicknamed “Smurf” (Ellen Barkin) who controls her sons through manipulation, deceit and guile. If J is somewhat an innocent then his uncles are hardened criminals who’ll take whatever they can get their hands on and kill whomever when necessary. But after they accidentally kill an off-duty police officer moonlighting as a security guard, the crew is thrown in disarray since they no longer have enough loot to sustain themselves and now have the police actively looking to bust up the gang after one of their own was murdered.

Animal Kingdom started off strong enough for me to watch the entire series, but I have to admit I lost interest in the show somewhere about the halfway mark. To me the series existed in their weird netherworld between two styles of show. On the one hand there’s similar series like True Detective that goes into the deep end of dark and almost play out like a horror series. On the other hand there’s network series like CSI or Chicago P.D. that are so light and unrealistic they’re soap operas with cops. And I think that Animal Kingdom fits somewhere in between these two styles. There’s a hard edge to the show, but it’s also very light in other ways.

Animal Kingdom plays out like these lite shows when it comes to the crimes the Cody family pulls off. The two big ones of the season, the first where they rob a jewelry mart of expensive watches and the final where they steal bails of cash from the US military, play out like scenes from a James Bond movie. Where there are so many intricate steps to the plan that if just one thing would go wrong the entire crew would spend the rest of their lives in jail. And in a series like Animal Kingdom while things do go wrong, they go wrong in a very TV like way.

It doesn’t help matters that in Animal Kingdom the stakes are never made quite clear for the J character. In the movie he’s in mortal danger from his uncles when he’s the only witness to the murder of two police officers they committed. In the TBS series he seems to be in danger, but not much. Here, it’s like the uncles may kill J, or they may send him out for ice cream.

I think where the movie version succeeded so well was in that palpable sense of danger for J. He’s just a kid and doesn’t really know what he’s gotten himself into — or even when he does he really doesn’t have anywhere else to go. But the TV version replaces that danger with a lot of flashy toys for the Cody family and minor heists as the uncles try to keep themselves in the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to.

I think when the TV version of Animal Kingdom succeeded was when it went dark. I especially liked Shawn Hatosy who played the unhinged just out of jail and very dangerous uncle “Pope” very well. He’s the kind of character you wouldn’t want to be around but you’d be afraid to leave his side lest he get it into his head that you have something against him and come after you one night when you least expect it. And he does something so unexpected in the second to last episode of the first season it made me shutter.

Animal Kingdom has already been renewed for a second season on TNT set to debut sometime in 2017. Depending on what else is on at the time it premiers I may, or may not watch the second season of the show. It’s not bad but it’s not something people are going to be talking about for years to come either.

Luke Cage promo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfJvnb4H3TE

Movies

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Trailer

“The world is coming undone — Imperial flags reign across the galaxy.”

Arrival trailer

Books

Out this Tuesday is the final book to list all of the Topps Star Wars trading cards from the 1970s and 1980s; Star Wars: Return of the Jedi: The Original Topps Trading Card Series, Volume Three. You may have to be a die hard fan of Star Wars, the original trilogy and of trading cards to want this book, but luckily I am. 😉

The Reading & Watch List

This week in pop-culture history

  • 1954: James Cameron, writer/director of Terminator, Aliens and Avatar is born
  • 1986: The Fly opens in theaters
  • 1987: The Monster Squad premiers

Direct Beams Comms #35

Movies

Transformers: The Movie

TransformersIn 1986 Transformers: The Movie made something like $5.8 million at the box office, and about $3 of that came from me.

Honestly, I have no idea how or why I decided to go see Transformers: The Movie at the theater. Back in 1986 I was into Transformers but I was just at the age where I was starting to cycle out of toys and TV cartoons for other things. I suspect that my friend Jon, who saw it with me, was the driving influence on us going since my family didn’t see a lot of movies in the theater and it wasn’t like I had a lot of money of my own to spend seeing films.

Transformers: The Movie is an odd film. It’s based on the 1980s cartoon series of the same name where no character ever died and things always stayed the same between episodes even though there were lots of battles between the good Autobots and bad Decepticons. But in Transformers: The Movie movie LOTS of characters died, even arguably the most famous characters of all Optimus Prime.

Or at least that’s what I’ve been told. Just before Optimus’ big death scene there’s a huge battle and I had to go to the bathroom. And I held it until the fighting had ended and the Autobots went to attend to a wounded Optimus. Since it was a weekday afternoon we had the place to ourselves and then I ran out of the theater to the bathroom, went as fast as I could then ran back to my seat and back to the movie. Jon leaned over and said, “You totally missed it, Optimus just died!” While I believed him, I really didn’t. Surly they wouldn’t kill off the most popular Transformer character of all time?!

Looking back now I can see what happened. In 1986 the toy series had been around for a few years and Hasbro was looking for a way to add some new Transformers characters to the line. So some characters had to die in the movie to make room for new ones on toy shelves.

Transformers the Movie
Transformers the Movie

What’s interesting, though, is that while there were big changes in the movie and new characters were added, I don’t remember that the cartoon series changed all that much the next fall. What ended the spring of 1986 continued that autumn and ignored the movie entirely. Though when I was reading up on the movie I did forget that it takes place in the far off futuristic distant year of 2005, so maybe that explains the story discrepancies?

While I do have fond memories of Transformers: The Movie those memories are mostly around seeing the film in the theater rather than the actual content of Transformers: The Movie itself. I still enjoy seeing clips from the movie, think the soundtrack is excellent throwback brilliance and love the poster, but I can’t remember the last time I actually sat down to watch Transformers: The Movie?

Of course nowadays if you say, “Transformers: The Movie” to almost anyone they’d assume you’re talking about the line of dreadful Michael Bay produced films that began back in 2007 with yet another one due in 2017. If the 1986 movie is bad, it’s bad because it’s too earnest in a 1980s kind’a way. If the recent film series is bad, and trust me, they are, it’s because it’s a movie series about talking robots that transform into things like cars and jets that takes itself waaaaaaay to seriously.

Which means that since there’s a slew of new, abet crappy live-action films out there now there’s less opportunity for Transformers: The Movie to air anywhere on TV. Why would kids today want to watch a crummy cartoon when they can watch a stupid live action cartoon instead?

In closing, Transformers = sort’a cool, Michael Bay = uncool. 😉

Dunkirk teaser trailer

Books

Out this week is the book Aliens: The Set Photography that looks to be 144 pages of behind the scenes pics from this movie classic.

The Reading & Watch List

This week in pop-culture history

  • 1960: David Duchovny, Fox Mulder of The X-Files is born
  • 1968: Gillian Anderson, Dana Scully of The X-Files is born
  • 1986: The Transformers: The Movie opens in theaters
  • 1989: The Abyss opens in theaters

Suicide Squad – We’re the bad guys

Eventually, all comic book creators start telling stories focused on the bad guys. They just can’t help it. There’s only so many stories they can tell about the superheroes before the writers start looking in other places for plots and invariably wind up on the villains. And this makes sense — to stand the test of time good super villains have to be at least as interesting as the heroes. Joker is as interesting as Batman and Magneto to Wolverine. So why not focus stories on the bad guys? And that’s essentially what the upcoming Suicide Squad movie is — a story about the bad guys.

suicide_squad_ver38Here, the Suicide Squad is composed of a group of villains like marksman Deadshot (Will Smith), Joker protege Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and living monster Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) to name a few. In the past all these characters were caught and thrown into prison for their crimes and now are made an offer “they can’t refuse.” Join up with this super-villain squad to try and stop a greater evil and have their sentences reduced or rot in prison forever.

But these missions are very dangerous — so dangerous that some of these villains aren’t expected to survive. Hence the name; Suicide Squad. If you’re thinking that Suicide Squad sounds a lot like the movie Dirty Dozen, well, you’re not far off the mark. Other than some of the characters possessing superpowers, Dirty Dozen is essentially what Suicide Squad is.

What’s ironic here is that while I’d assume that most of the movie going public already knows who characters like Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman are before they go and see a movie about them, I doubt many know who Suicide Squad members like Enchantress, Katana or El Diablo are. Which makes me wonder why DC would take such a huge gamble on releasing a Suicide Squad movie as their third film out in their superhero franchise? To put that into perspective, the third Marvel Studios film was the relatively safe-looking Iron Man 2.

But ironies on ironies — it looks like DC might actually have a hit on their hands with the once risky looking Suicide Squad that’s seems to be a movie audiences are excited to see.

The first movie in this new DC franchise was Man of Steel (2013) then Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice from earlier this year. While these movies did make money at the box office — so far they’ve earned a combined total of something like $1.6 billion — neither of them have really caught on with the fans.

suicide_squad_ver43Man of Steel was greeted with a lot of questions like, “what’s next?” and “why was that so dark?” While, at best, Batman v Superman was greeted with a collective “meh” and at worst downright derision.

I can’t imagine that when the creators of these two movies set out to make their versions of two of the most popular comic book characters of all time they figured this would be the reaction they’d get. Which must be disheartening. That is until you take into account the upcoming Suicide Squad.

This film, that stars a few known actors like Will Smith and Jared Leto, but is full of completely unknown characters like Captain Boomerang and Slipknot is actually a movie people want, and are excited to see gauging fan reaction to the marketing for the movie. So excited that reportedly DC’s already put a movie about Harley Quinn on the fast track.

Why are audiences excited about Suicide Squad before the release when they mostly yawned at Batman v Superman before that movie came out? I think it’s because Suicide Squad looks to be a lot of FUN whereas the trailers for Batman v Superman made that movie look like a long, dull, boring DRAG. I think audiences are excited about Suicide Squad because it looks like something they’d have a good time going to see whereas after seeing Batman v Superman it looked like something they’d need to visit their analyst afterwards.

I don’t think people care who the characters in the movie are — just as long as it looks like actually getting out and going to the movie’s going to be a good time.

suicide_squad_ver25_xlg