Staring at the sky…

Saw “Hot Fuzz” this weekend, made by the Edgar Wright - Simon Pegg - Nick Frost trinity that brought us “Shaun of the Dead,” and I’ll be honest, it does not disappoint.

I did not, however, it must be noted, enjoy it in the same way that I enjoyed “Shaun of the Dead,” so I assume that many people will write about how it isn’t as good, because it isn’t exactly the same. It is as good, but does not work on the same level as “Shaun.”

“Shaun” was, by and large, the story of a slacker growing up. Consequently, I knew that guy. That movie shocked me, and still does, because it is a comedy plain and simple, but I ended up caring about the characters more than I usually do for a really good character driven drama. There was no one in that film that I could say did not remind me of someone I knew, and it lulled me into a sense of false security, and kept doing things I completely was not expecting. Dylan Moran’s death scene in that movie still strikes me as one of the most disturbing moments in cinema (even if it was based on a scene from “Day of the Dead”).

“Hot Fuzz” was pretty much just funny. The characters are definitely well written, and well thought out, and the story is interesting and engaging, but it’s less personal, and less approachable than Shaun. All the same, it does give a much broader view of its characters than either the average comedy/parody/homage, or action film.

It also successfully follows all rules of the action film:
1. Someone is tired of the main character’s loose cannon ways
2. The main character is right about something important, but no one believes him
3. There’s some sort of relationship problem
4. A mismatched partnership
5. Jumping with guns
6. Guns that come from unexpected locations
7. An excess of guns
8. The only guns that need to be reloaded belong to the villains
9. No one apparently knows how to aim the guns except for the heroes (i.e. slightly more realistic than GI Joe and Cobra, neither one of which could hit a fly with a barn door apparently)
10. Inexplicably, no guns are available for the final fight, which is purely hand to hand combat, generally done while some people who could help either the hero or villain just watch spellbound
11. One pivotal fight scene (and usually only one) must be done either a) under water, b) in a hard rain storm, or c) next to a broken water main
12. In the end the hero is vindicated, and the point of the slight mystery underlying all of it seems vague and pointless.

Rule number 11 I realized years ago while watching “Lethal Weapon” on HBO. As I recall, it ends with the entire police force, watching Mel Gibson beat up a guy in Danny Glover’s front yard, which is flooded by a broken sprinkler system. Now, maybe I remember this wrong… It doesn’t really matter, I’m sure my memory is just as likely to actually happen as the actual ending of the film.

Overall, I will say that this film, like “Grindhouse” is not for everyone. But those whom it is for, will love it. And, unlike Grindhouse, even those whom the film is not for will likely enjoy most of it, and just wince at certain parts.

There’s a rumor going around (well, okay it seems to be an article, with Daniel Radcliffe chiming in) that “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is being edited to avoid the failure of “Grindhouse.”

This is a bit like deciding that because 2 lb. bags of Licorice don’t sell particularly well, that it’s best to not try and sell 2 lb. bags of chocolate.

Is there anyone who can seriously explain to me the logic here? “Grindhouse” is a rated R film that appeals largely to young men, and film geeks. It being a 3 hour long film could dissuade people from going to see it. “Harry Potter,” on the other hand, is the movie equivalent of crack cocaine wrapped in bacon. You couldn’t stop a large number of people from going to see it if you paid them.

And listen, I do understand that you will never be able to make a faithful reproduction of a book in film form unless it’s a very short book (see “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe”), and that streamlining is important to getting a movie out. As long as you’re true to the story, you can cut a lot (see “To Kill a Mockingbird” with Gregory Peck), and if you’re not true to the story it doesn’t matter how long the film is (See the 2 and a quarter hour version of “The Scarlet Letter”, starring Demi Moore).

All the same, if this is your rationale, then you’ve missed something important…

Ann and I saw “Grindhouse” today. It was a great way to spend the afternoon. There’s really not a lot to say about it.

First off — Zoe Bell, who plays herself, is hilarious and bad-ass, and I think she needs more work, period, in major starring roles. Half of one movie in a double feature is not enough. For those of you who do not know who she is, she was Lucy Lawless’ stunt double in “Xena,” and Uma Thurman’s in “Kill Bill.”

Second off, the “missing reel” gag in “Planet Terror” was really funny. I don’t want to elaborate, but while I probably would have called it lazy writing in most cases, it really worked at keeping the film as streamlined as a movie about a stripper with a shotgun for a leg fighting zombies can be. The missing reel in “Death Proof” was not as funny, but I think that’s because Tarantino didn’t really deliver as campy a film as Rodriguez. I mean Tarantino’s was definitely a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, but on a scale of 1 to 10, Rodriguez’s was a STRIPPER WITH A &#$%ING SHOTGUN FOR A LEG!

Tarantino’s film was definitely more intimate, and I liked that. It was all about build up.

Thirdly, the films combined probably had more blood than the red cross.

It has definitely succeeded in re-creating a bit of double feature fun (or an evening at my friend Mike’s house in Chapel Hill), though not in really making you think too much, except about other films. I think my recent film choices have been a little unbalanced, and violent. It must be summer.