Bad Teacher

Rating: ★

Bad teacher, worse car-washer.

There’s a special place in Hell reserved for people like Elisabeth Halsey. She’s a drunk, drug-abusing, materialistic gold-digger, and makes no bones about it. If you took one look at the woman, you’d think trophy wife, and move on. As well you should. What you wouldn’t think, however, is “teacher”. Role model, etc. Of course, that’s all part of the joke of the movie. Get it? Of course you do - it’s spelled out to the point where it isn’t funny anymore. Bad Teacher takes the idea that made Bad Santa so funny, and pile drives it into slapstick oblivion. Where in Bad Santa, the Santa was a criminal posing as a Santa. In Bad Teacher, this woman is actually a teacher, posing as a good person. The joke is lost in the translation.

I don’t really get it anymore.

More after the cut--

Gangs of New York

Rating: ★★★★

They're about to literally stomp the yard.

The critical divide over this film is astounding, even after almost ten years since it was released. The general consensus seems to be "it's an excellent film, but a touch unnecessary". I can understand that, and in some ways I'm inclined to agree. But, when reviewing a film, it's important to not think of it in an existential way (unless, of course, it requires that). What the film is, regardless of its necessity, is a sprawling epic and a beautifully told story. Filled with large characters and passionate direction. In some ways, it's a masterpiece. In other ways, it's just a damn good film.

Most people understand the word 'masterpiece' as being the singular pinnacle of an artist's career. I've always understood it to mean a piece of work that reflects the artist being at the top of their game. And by that definition, Martin Scorsese's career is loaded with masterpieces. So much so that the standard of 'masterpiece' becomes a bit higher for him. Gangs of New York, as Roger Ebert once remarked (and I'm saying this here because I've agreed with him for almost ten years now), would have been any other director's masterpiece. But in a filmography that contains Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, The Age of Innocence, etc.... it falls just short. A towering achievement, nevertheless, but not 'his masterpiece'.

More after the cut --

The Green Hornet

"That's right. I'll be playing a superhero. Don't look so confused."

It takes a certain kind of film to make me question the state of a genre. Certain horror movies make question the audiences that attend them, and certain movies that go on to win Oscars make me question the voters. But, not since 1990's Captain America (a horrid movie starring Matt Salinger as the first Avenger) have I sat down and thought about the state of a genre. I remember seeing that and being thankful that even after such a gigantic misfire we're still allowed Batman movies and Spiderman movies and even another Captain America film (which appears to be infinitely better). The Green Hornet, you should know, is one of those certain films - I've seen it twice now and both times I've thought to myself "is this the state of the superhero film? This is what we've come to?" 

More after the cut--