The Brewhaha on..."The Truman Show"

“I am the Creator…”
-Ed Harris, as himself

“The movie isn't only a satire of television and other forms of media. It aims many of its most pointed barbs at us, the audience. […]  We're the villains and victims and hero of The Truman Show. And, ultimately, the only illusions we have to escape are the ones we create ourselves.”
-TransparencyNow.com, and its discussion of the power of fiction

“The Truman Show is nothing if not original. It's also funny, moving, imaginative and wickedly smart about the addictive power of comfy illusion.”
-Margaret McGurk, The Cincinnati Enquirer

“What's the point of the satire? It doesn't connect with anything. In the real world, the kind of television spectacle the public gets wrapped up in -- soap operas, Jerry Springer, ER, or a serial documentary like An American Family -- are all full of incident, emotion, and rage (however ersatz). Even Seinfeld has crises, albeit of the spluttering, tempest-in-a-teapot variety.”
-Peter Rainer, New York Magazine (June 1998 issue)

“…of a television show that gives hope and joy and inspiration to millions of viewers.”
-Ed Harris, as himself, finishing the above quote


The 1998 film “The Truman Show” is notable for two things.  First, it shows the implications of a man being forced into a life of super-stardom, the effects that a “producer” such as the character quoted above can have when he takes control of the “narrative” of someone’s life, and the impact of the realization that you, in fact, are the star of this TV show called life.

Second, it gives us Jim Carrey in a dramatic role.

(Don’t worry, I’ll give you a few to get over that last one.

You all better now?  Okay, good.  Moving on…)

Jim Carrey plays Truman Burbank, the title character of both the movie and the show within the movie, a round-the-clock reality show filmed in a giant, virtual bio-sphere of a studio where his life is entirely controlled by a producer and his special effects team.  Every moment is scripted, caught on camera, and broadcast for the entire world to see.

The twist?  He doesn’t know he’s in a show.  His life is scripted, everyone around him is a co-actor or actress, but all of his actions are as genuine as your sitcom character or your Hollywood hero.

Opposite Jim Carrey is “the Creator” himself, Christof (Ed Harris), who is the producer of Truman’s show and, by extension, his very life.  Contrary to our common perception of a producer or creator, though, he takes a very hands-on approach to the whole affair, to the point that he is trying to keep Truman oblivious to any sort of world outside of the show.

Ultimately, “The Truman Show” is the story of a man slowly discovering the seams by which his world is held together.  He questions his family, he questions authority, he questions the heavens themselves, as slowly the truth of his existence dawns on him.  All the while, his audience of millions throughout the world are hanging on his every word and thought, as they make this journey along with him.

Ten years ago, such a premise would have been unheard of.  Today, we have all sorts of reality shows which push the potential for a real-life Truman Burbank closer and closer to a TV near you.  We have our Kardashians, we have our Rocs (and Flava’s, and Daisies) of Love, we have our Danny Bonaduces, our Survivors and our Amazing Races…hell, we even have the likes of Ashton Kutcher acting the troll and trying to prank celebrities for our amusement.  Of course, these stars have as much of a say in their own fiction as anyone else, which is where this comparison falls apart.

While this film doesn’t necessarily hold up as a commentary on reality TV, it does illustrate the power of illusion in general, and fiction in particular.  The allure of escapism isn’t limited to just TV; we have movies, we have books, we have cartoons, theatre, music, sports, and all sorts of media (if I’ve missed anything besides fishing, stamp-collecting, and Iron Chef, I sincerely apologize) which take us away from our humdrum lives.  Whether it’s print, electronic, live and in person, or just a simple daydream, there’s no denying our need—or maybe just a simple dogged desire—to escape to a world or a life that is somehow “better,” or at least more entertaining, than the typical eat, sleep, nine-to-five monotony we all become so used to.

This is the challenge our title character must face.  Or so we’re told, anyway.  His fiction, his illusion, is an extreme example, one where he lives and breathes the world of his own TV show.  To face this is to admit that his whole life up until now has been a giant lie.  One might say that his own quest as the protagonist is the inverse and opposite of fighting illusion.  Rather than allowing himself to give in to the monotony of his day-to-day life, he instead wonders, “What if?”  Through this, he attempts what I think of as “reverse escapism.”  Even if one views the film as strictly satire, this is still insanity on the character’s part.

The bio-dome and elaborate TV show orchestrated by Christof is a gauntlet of physical and psychological checks designed to keep Truman from so much as even suspecting the truth behind his scripted life.  As far as our star knows, the show is the real world.  A snippet of conversation here and an old photo there help him figure out that not all is right with the “real world,” but you never really see that moment where he should be able to make that mental leap from garden-variety paranoia to “Hey, this is all a TV show!!”  So, speaking strictly in terms of its plot and character development, that much is at least to be desired.  However, I do give the filmmakers credit in trying to imply his moment of realization, rather than just giving us any one moment where it just hits him (though his confrontation with his “wife” might be a good point in the film to hone in on).

So overall, is “The Truman Show” a good film?  Yes.  Is it a great film?  Yes.  But remember that “great” and “perfect” aren’t one and the same.  It asks questions that do need asked in this day and age:  Is entertainment truly healthy for us?  How much is too much?  Do we escape from reality at our own peril?  With Truman, though, these questions are flipped on their head.  The message is good, and the overall story holds up.  However, it’s not clear if our hero is just a paranoid nutcase, or if he’s a paranoid nutcase who’s actually on to something.  (Though to be fair, this is Jim Carrey we’re talking about.)

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer, and also something of a self-styled entertainer.  He…has no scripts, no cue cards.  It isn’t always Shakespeare, but it’s genuine.  It’s…a life.  It’s…something of a life, for something of a self-styled entertainer.

The Brewhaha on..."The Mechanic" (2011)

“The killer develops a conscience.  I think that’s a breach of contract, Mr. Bishop.”
-Some guy, as himself

“Don't waste your time cruising the internet for porn because if you see ‘The Mechanic,’ you'll have all you need: violence…as porn that is.”
-One IMDb reviewer, who has no clue what that word actually means

“This compact 90-minute fantasy of vigilante justice […] feels fresh and satisfying. Maybe it's the presence of Jason Statham, the British action star who has a physicality like no other actor out there right now.  […]  Or maybe it's The Mechanic’s focus—unusual for a film of its type—on a male-male relationship that's more fraught than the usual pairing of two wisecracking buddies.”
-Dana Stevens, Slate.com

“While I wouldn't go so far as to call The Mechanic truly dull, it's definitely missing what has made other Statham action vehicles stand out so well: creativity.”
-Matthew Razak, Flixist.com

We (and by “we,” I mean the action movie-going audience in general) have certain expectations of a movie featuring Jason Statham.  It’s not like we’re looking for anything politically correct, or anything that completely and utterly questions action movies in general.  Quite the opposite, in fact; we want Jason Statham to teach us how to solve our problems by resorting to extreme and unequaled levels of violence and punching, shooting, and choking those we don’t like.

However, I think I speak for a lot of people who saw his latest film, the octane-fueled remake of the 1974 movie “The Mechanic,” when I say that we weren’t expected something so…mean-spirited, I guess is the word.

In “The Mechanic,” Statham plays the same basic character he has made famous in the Transporter series.  He’s the unstoppable one-man WMD who is afraid to let other people in.  And when it comes to the “WMD” part, the movie is not afraid to remind us of this.  Even the basic premise of his character is much the same as his predecessor, an OCD perfectionist who wants to keep his “jobs” as clean and efficient as possible.  Specifically, he makes a career as a covert assassin, one who is hired to terminate his targets under the pretense of unfortunate “accidents.”

One unfortunate “accident” later, Statham—I’m sorry, Bishop’s—boss winds up dead, and he is forced to take on the boss’s son as an apprentice to make it up to him.  The young man in question is a trouble-making 23-year-old played by Ben Foster, best known as the supporting piercings-riddled apartment dweller in the 2003 version of “The Punisher” and for his blink-and-you’ll-miss-it role as the Angel in “X-Men: The Last Stand.”  Foster brings an intensity and outright unpredictability to his role as an assassin-in-training, but considering the “-in-training” part, he has a long way to go to make a convincing action star, especially alongside the likes of Statham.

As the latest Statham vehicle, this film will inevitably draw comparisons to the Transporter series, especially the first one.  To be fair, “The Transporter” set an extremely high standard for action movies in general.  With this in mind, “The Mechanic” simply doesn’t measure up.  All of those little, “technical” details like the camerawork, the editing, the action scenes, the score, the characterizations and that beast we call “acting,” are all a major step down from his previous work.

My own opinion on this movie was set in stone by the ending.  Much in the same way that “The Sixth Sense” has become known for its twist ending, “The Mechanic” is driven by an ending which seemingly turns its entire premise upside-down.  The longer I watched it, the more lukewarm I felt about the whole affair, but I still realized it was at least building toward a potentially powerful ending.  Then, as I watch this potential ending unfold, they pull the rug right out from under me, as if to say, “Screw that other guy, we’re gonna make some sequels.”  Who knows, though?  Ten years from now, I might appreciate the morbid ending.  Or I might hate it with a passion driving me to track down and burn every copy of the DVD.

“The Mechanic” is a by-the-numbers action film.  There are occasional touches, such as the impeccable opening scene, the use of classical music, Statham’s eventual confrontation with his boss and mentor, and the overall darker tone embodied in the title character, which nudge this movie past “just another action movie.”  But at the end of the day, that’s really all “The Mechanic” is.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  And no, he has not seen the original version.

The Brewhaha on..."Manos: The Hands of Fate" and "Demolition Man"

Tonight, on a very special Valentine’s edition of the Brewhaha, I’m here to review two not-so-great—if not absolutely terrible—movies you can spend an evening watching with that special someone.  Our first movie for the night is an abridged commentary and a brief re-acquaintance with an old favorite movie star of mine, specifically the 1993 futuristic/action cop spoof, “Demolition Man.”

Now, Sylvester Stallone is one of those people in Hollywood you either love or hate.  You’ll either love him because he’s an unapologetic action star with a ham-fisted approach to his performances and he has that noticeable curl to his lip, or you’ll hate him for many of the aforementioned reasons.

His career is basically a reflection of this.  When he does a Rambo or Rocky movie, or decides to work with half a dozen other action stars for the sole purpose of playing commando for an entire film, he manages to draw in a lot of fans.  But whether it’s fate, his poor choices when it comes to scripts, or simply Hollywood developing an inability to take a boxer/Vietnam vet with an oft-parodied pseudo-macho slur seriously, he ended up in a slew of not-so-great films starting around the 90’s.

“Demolition Man” is one of those films.  And, coincidentally enough, it’s one of those films I haven’t really caught all the way through.  That’s because (a) I had just switched the channel to AMC about a week back, and (b) I had to leave just when they got to Denis Leary in the tunnels.

According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, “Demolition Man” was supposed to be a satire of sorts.  Since I caught maybe twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, all I saw was Sylvester Stallone as IS! some futuristic time cop in another post-apocalyptic (or simply post-twentieth-century) world where he has to bring justice both to the crooks and to the system.  I mean, first he’s in “Judge Dredd,” and then this movie?  I suppose he makes a good post-apocalyptic police enforcer with a laser gun, but there’s only so much of that the world can handle.

From what I’ve seen, they at least did some decent world-building.  It was a world of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”  And Stallone protests this highly-stratified society the way only our good Sly-dog can, in that gritty, everyman, in-your-face manner which is either completely awesome or just absolutely preachy and an insult to our intelligence.  At the Sly-dog’s side for most of the film is Sandra Bullock, taking a break from saving homeless kids and stalking some guy to give us the quintessential futuristic girl with an encyclopedic knowledge of the twenty-first century and a knack for stating the obvious.  (i.e. “You do not accuse someone of fraud!  It’s rude!”)

Dennis Leary plays a rebel without a cause who lives in the pre-apocalyptic world in the sewers, a man from the twentieth century.  Having escaped the brainwashing attempts of the future’s overly-legalistic society, he is a man who only wants “high cholesterol,” a “Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati,” and those old-fashioned values of “freedom of speech and freedom of choice.”  I’ve seen him in two of his supporting roles, the other one being his temperamental police chief in “Who’s the Man?”  In both cases, he steals whatever scene he’s in.

The general consensus is that “Demolition Man” isn’t a great film, but it’s still a movie which unapologetically revels in how cheesy it is.  Having seen…what was it, like a half hour or so?...I can safely say I agree.  The no-nonsense one man weapon of destruction the Sly-dog has unintentionally parodied to death firmly find his place in “Demolition Man” and doesn’t let go…at least, for the thirty minutes in the middle I managed to catch.

Our next movie for tonight is “Manos:  The Hands of Fate,” which is almost universally regarded as one of the worst films of all time.  To give you an idea of what I mean, all you need to know is this:  It was created by a fertilizer salesman from El Paso who bet a friend that he could make a movie.

Manos would have faded into obscurity, if it hadn’t been tracked down by Frank from TV’s “Mystery Science Theater 3000.”  The movie was shown in what oddly enough became one of MST3K’s highest-rated episodes.  This was the version my eternal movie buddy managed to download for us to watch the other night.

As far as I can remember, there were no opening credits; the perfect time to show credits would have been during the ten-minute-long documentary film of the great plains of Texas (or was it Maine?) inexplicably before at the beginning of the actual movie.  Since it was an independent film crew, I can only guess that none of them wanted their names attached.

Contrary to popular belief, there is some consistency between the main portions of the film and the opening and closing scenes.  Granted, a lot of those scenes could (and should) have been cut out, but they do at least establish that, yes, there are police in the strange world of this movie, and yes, that inexplicable horny couple which pops up in the beginning and…yes, in the middle too…helped point the police in the right direction (even if, as always in horror movies, the police were completely incompetent afterward).  Personally, I was also pleasantly surprised that the movie actually had some sort of ending, considering the obvious problems with editing (out!) material both at the beginning and toward the end.

At the moment, I’m getting caught up with the original, un-MST3K’d version of the movie on YouTube.  As always, the villains completely steal the show; even if they are completely over-the-top.  And it sounds like The Master managed to get the best music.

Still, like I said before, there were some obvious problems in the editing process.  The beginning and ending notwithstanding, there are also a lot of awkward pauses, spliced-in images, just stuff like that.  And, even if we simply accept the fact that this was an independent movie, all of the characters are just completely stupid.  The main couple inexplicably lose their daughter at the beginning, Torgo is an obvious, nigh-useless “Igor”-type character, and even the Master becomes incredibly ineffectual the moment he says, “ARISE, MY WIVES!!!”  Not to mention the way his “wives” basically “massage” their traitor to death near the end.

The film’s main appeal?  Probably the fan service.  As always, the wife and female lead ends up the typical damsel in distress for most of the movie.  And the Master’s WIVES?  Well, see for yourself.  Torgo is also an interesting breakout character.  (Side note:  He wore a metal rigging which was intended to make him walk like a “satyr.”  It ended up giving him chronic pain in his legs, and as a result he was on painkillers for a good portion of the filming).  And as always, when you’re looking for a good, hammy villain, look no further than…wait, is that Freddie Mercury?

If you’re curious, and you have a high tolerance for really bad movies, you can watch the un-MST3K’d version on one GameFighter66’s YouTube channel, beginning here.  (This is assuming it doesn’t get taken down by Google any time soon.)  Just grab some popcorn, invite some good friends over (or, if you’re getting serious for Valentine’s Day, invite the Mr. or Mrs. over), and be prepared to laugh your collective asses off.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  And no, this doesn’t count as two movies.  This counts as one-sixth of a movie and a sad excuse for a movie.  So there will be another review some time in the coming week, and then another review after that.  This only counts as one movie.  Barely.

The Brewhaha on...James Bond (Pierce Brosnan)

General Ouromov:  “How shall we kill you?”
Bond James Bond:  “What - no small talk? No chit-chat? That's the problem with the world these days -- no one takes the time to conduct the proper interrogation.”
-In which we meet the Bond of the 90’s

Elektra King:  “I could have given you the world.”
Bond James Bond:  “The world is not enough.”
Elektra King:  “Foolish sentiment.”
Bond James Bond:  “Family motto.”
-Seriously.  That is his family motto.

“Brosnan makes the grade as 007. He handles the action capably and gets the standard quips out in a commendably straightforward way that's wry but not dismissive. His is not as gritty as Sean Connery's definitive characterization, but the nasty streak evident in fleeting moments reassures that the license to kill could be invoked at any moment.”
-Todd McCarthy, Variety

“It’s the Batman & Robin of the Bond series, it’s a compendium of the worst sexual innuendoes ever written, it’s a blatant whore for about six different products, it’s an insultingly written and pandering affront to every quality Bond flick since Dr. No.”
-Scott Weinberg, eFilmCritic.com, discussing “Die Another Day”

“I realized with a smile, 15 minutes into the new James Bond movie, that I had unconsciously accepted Pierce Brosnan as Bond without thinking about Sean Connery, Roger Moore, or anyone else. He has become the landlord, not the tenant.”
-Roger Ebert, on the above movie (I am not making that up)


Continuing my five or six-part series on James Bond, we move back toward the latter end of the big three who portrayed Bond in the forty years spanning from “Dr. No” to the critically-reviled anniversary tribute of “Die Another Day” and the quintessential Bond of the nineties, better known as Pierce Brosnan.

Many of you might remember Brosnan as Remington Steele (though personally I remember him best as the geologist who let an old lady die).  Following a six-year hiatus after Timothy Dalton’s short stint as Her Majesty’s most efficient (and famous) secret agent, Brosnan would debut in 1995’s “Goldeneye,” which re-invigorated the Bond series for the following decade and introduced us to one deadly yet slimy Bond villain in Sean Bean’s Trevelyan, as well as two of the more gorgeous and memorable Bond girls (one of which became known for her…“killer” thighs).  “Goldeneye” was basically the film which, even if it didn’t break the mold, was still a fitting introduction to James Bond for a post-Cold War pop culture. 

Like most of the later Bond films, Brosnan’s entries were relatively standalone stories.  “Tomorrow Never Dies” (with the eerie title drop provided by Sheryl Crow now in a continuous loop in my head) was a more by-the-numbers Bond film—the “odd-numbered” Star Trek movie to one’s “even-numbered” Star Trek movie, if you will.  It was a stupendous action flick—with one notable scene featuring Bond’s remote-controlled car—but not necessarily a great or “original” Bond film.  I mean, a Bond girl who is on an equal footing with Bond himself?  Done that.  Megalomaniac with a massive secret complex out to commit a diabolical scheme on a global scale?  Well, even if he’s a bit hammier than most other examples, check, check, and check.  Explosives-riddled action sequences?  I see your Bond and Wai Lin, and raise you one Ethan Hunt (which, if my addiction to music videos is anything to go by, I will spend the next 48 hours watching over and over again).

“The World Is Not Enough” was the third edition to the Brosnan films, and since it was playing on Spike TV nonstop, this was my first chance to meet Brosnan’s Bond.  Following the “even-numbered,” “odd-numbered” tradition, this film was a more character-driven piece featuring a woman who had been taken hostage, a tragic yet bloodthirsty terrorist, and…Denise Richards (I guess two out of three isn’t bad).  Nuclear plots aside, it was a more down-to-earth Bond film, along with the darker tone that would continue in Daniel Craig’s films.  (And objectively speaking, Denise Richards wasn’t bad-looking.  If only all nuclear technicians were that hot…)  Still, it didn't seem quite right to me that Bond never really got to use his car in this movie.

As for “Die Another Day,” there’s very little left to say about it.  Frankly, it’s one of those films that almost works better if you think of it as a cartoon.  There are plot elements in this movie (Bond’s time as a POW, Miranda Frost, Gustav Graves, and even Halle Berry’s antagonistic CIA agent) that could and should have worked.  However, almost as if to compensate for the previous film, DAD ramps things up to eleven; the sheer escalation of the set pieces, culminating in a massive tidal wave kicked up by the bad guy’s laser and a climactic showdown on the plane, coupled with the reliance on gadgets and special effects, competes with “Moonraker” in terms of sheer ridiculousness.  And Halle Berry really could have worked as a character if her and Brosnan’s dialogue hadn’t been supplied by some fourteen-year-old kids trying to supply us with a movie's worth of what they might consider "double entendres."

Through it all, though, Pierce Brosnan has been there, performing his balancing act between the immortal Bond of the 60’s as portrayed by Connery and the debonair flair for the comedic given to us by Roger Moore.  It’s the little things, such as him chasing after Natalya while ravaging the streets of Moscow in a Soviet tank, only to survey the damage he’s just done to one of Russia’s statues and national treasures, and nervously adjust his bow tie as if to tell his former Soviet enemies “My bad.”

And then he’ll go and do something like accuse his love interest of having Stockholm Syndrome and secretly working with the bad guys.  (“Renard?  That animal, that monster?  He disgusts me!  You disgust me…”)

The Bond movies of the 90’s jettisoned most of Bond’s supporting cast (or, at the least, had them recast).  Felix Leiter, for better or worse, ultimately disappeared after “License to Kill,” while Miss Moneypenny was re-cast as someone possibly young enough to be Bond’s daughter.  Meanwhile, Judi Dench has now become the face of M, and even the original Q (Desmond Llewelyn) had all but retired by the end of “The World Is Not Enough.” 

Even so, he also gained new allies in his fight against crime, espionage, and megalomaniacs trying to take over the world.  Jack Wade, for instance, was Bond’s opposite in the CIA…and must never, ever be mentioned again.  A special mention goes to one of my all-time favorite characters, Zukovsky, the “legitimate businessman” who appears in GE and TWINE as a grudging ally of Bond.  Somehow, he always got the best lines.  (“Bond James Bond.  So nice of you to drop by.”)

Well, what else is there to say about Pierce Brosnan?  Other than that he is Bond.  James Bond.  Even if he isn’t Sean Connery, he captures the essence of all of the Bonds, the best of both worlds.  He was a killer, he was a lover, he was funny, he was cold-blooded, and if nothing else, he filled out the tux (which now comes complete with a grappling hook watch, hidden air bags for surviving avalanches, a homing device, and X-ray glasses.  Yes, seriously, X-ray glasses.).

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who keeps typing in “Goldfinger” instead of “Goldeneye.”  Or “Godeneye” instead of “Goldeneye.”  Or “Foodeneye” instead of “Goldeneye.”  It’s no secret.