Get Smart
4.5 Stars
There have been many a great cinematic adaptations of television shows. And there have been many a terrible ones, too. Where does Get Smart fall? On this side of great. Not quite The Fugitive, but miles ahead of *shudder* The Brady Bunch.
We're introduced to Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell), a mild-mannered and mostly naive analyst for CONTROL, a top-secret spy agency reportedly dismantled after the Cold War. He's on the brink of becoming a full blown agent, but he's just too good at his current job. But after the ruthless Siegfried (Terrance Stamp), leader of KAOS, bombs CONTROL headquarters and has their top agents assassinated, Smart gets promoted and gets assigned the task of bringing Siegfried to justice. All with the help of the beautiful, and more seasoned Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), the superstar Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson), and the careful guidence of the Chief (Alan Arkin).
With any adaptation of a TV show, and I probably delved into this a bit with Sex and the City, there's always the fans of the show that are hinging on whether or not it will be a faithful adaptation of the show, or if it will just be a goofy take-off. But what do you do when the show you're adapting starred the hilarious Don Adams, and was created by the even more hilarious Mel Brooks? Well, it's going to be goofy. But it's never insulting to the source material.
Get Smart the movie keeps the same light spirit as the show, with it's bizarre take on the spy genre. And I think the parody/satire has evolved with the genre. Where the spy genre had to reinvent itself after the fall of the Soviet Union (you can thank 24 and The Bourne Identity for the reinvention), Get Smart had to follow suit and become relevent again. And it does so in glorious fashion. It takes a cue from the Bourne page and hypes up the action, but doesn't strip itself of the slapstick and pratfalls. Carell and Hathaway have significantly more fight scenes than Adams and Barbara Feldon would have ever done, but that doesn't mean they are completely gadget-less. In fact, with the fantastic progress in actual techhnology that has been made in the past 43 years, the gadgets were even funnier and more outlandish than they were back then.
I have to do it because it's an iconic role... compare Carell to Adams as Smart. This was a hard role to take on, only because Adams poured so many idiosynchracies into the character, that to do a straight impersonation would have been wrong, and an ultimate fail. But to not play it like Adams would have been an insult to the character and the show. So Carell had to, and did, find that balance of playing the character, and also making it his own. It never became a charicature of Maxwell Smart. And that speaks volumes on Carell's talent as a comedian.
The same could, and should, be said about Hathaway taking on 99. Granted she had a bit more wiggle room with the character (though not in that dress, yowzah! Very nice!) than Carell did. But I think she did a fantastic job of portraying super-sexy yet super-deadly and the whole time super-sweet secret agent that has to carry Smart through his first real mission, and oddly doesn't seem to really mind.
I give major props for all involved, they really did an amazing job of capturing and subsequently updating the 40 year old TV show. You will not have more fun at the theatres at all... I sure as hell haven't.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
George Carlin: 1937-2008
I know much of the western world is deeply saddened by the news of George Carlin's passing earlier today. I am in particular. He wasn't just my favourite comedian. He was the reason I got into comedy in the first place. I got my hands on one of his tapes way back when I was a wee lad, say around 6 years of age. It was "FM&AM", if I'm not mistaken. I was six, so I didn't get a lot of the jokes, but he was making the audience laugh. And from then on, I was hooked on stand up. Loved it ever since. I've seen numerous specials and plenty of live shows. And thankfully, last year, I got to see Carlin down in Escanaba.
He was a brilliant comedian. Words were his instrument, and he was the Eric Clapton of comedy. And he wasn't about quips, one liners or insults. He was about dissecting the language and the absurdities of it. He didn't need to be profane, but because the dirty words were part of our language, they were part of his act. He could do 10 minutes on the word shit. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did.
He got his start in the late 50's, hosting a radio show with Jack Burns. He did several TV appearences and live shows. This is an early one of his from the Smothers Brothers way back in '68.
He was a frequent guest and guest host on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He was the first ever host of a little program called Saturday Night Live.
This link takes you to the first part of "FM & AM." I can't embed the video, but I can link you to it. You can listen to the entire album, and you should, it is fantastic.
This link takes you to the first part of "Toledo Window Box." Again... no embedding, but I can link you to it. Listen to the whole thing, it too is fantastic.
But I can give you a few of my favourite bits.
Carlin's Revised 10 Commandments:
And I can't do this post without posting...
The comedy world, and indeed the world itself is saddened by his unfortunate passing. He will be missed.
He was a brilliant comedian. Words were his instrument, and he was the Eric Clapton of comedy. And he wasn't about quips, one liners or insults. He was about dissecting the language and the absurdities of it. He didn't need to be profane, but because the dirty words were part of our language, they were part of his act. He could do 10 minutes on the word shit. In fact, I'm pretty sure he did.
He got his start in the late 50's, hosting a radio show with Jack Burns. He did several TV appearences and live shows. This is an early one of his from the Smothers Brothers way back in '68.
He was a frequent guest and guest host on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. He was the first ever host of a little program called Saturday Night Live.
This link takes you to the first part of "FM & AM." I can't embed the video, but I can link you to it. You can listen to the entire album, and you should, it is fantastic.
This link takes you to the first part of "Toledo Window Box." Again... no embedding, but I can link you to it. Listen to the whole thing, it too is fantastic.
But I can give you a few of my favourite bits.
Carlin's Revised 10 Commandments:
And I can't do this post without posting...
The comedy world, and indeed the world itself is saddened by his unfortunate passing. He will be missed.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Incredible Hulk
The Incredible Hulk
3.5 Stars
It's easy to restart a franchise when enough time has passed to wash the bad taste of a terrible cinematic outing out of the collective mouths of the movie going public. Just ask Christopher Nolan, who successfully restarted the Batman franchise following Joel Schumacher's failed attempts at the caped crusader. But what about just five years later, when the stench of failure still lingers? Louis Leterrier decided to find out by rebooting The Incredible Hulk, and where the pairing of Ang Lee and Eric Bana failed (which was everywhere), Leterrier and Edward Norton pass with flying colours, even if they only manage to produce a slightly better than average superhero flick.
Leterrier throws caution to the wind and decides to completely ignore the previous film, and instead take it on a new path, that parallels the iconic 70's TV show. Provided only a brief, yet informative exposition, we join Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) in self-imposed exile in Brazil, working at a bottling plant by day, conducting his bio-chemical research at night. Gen. Ross has (William Hurt) has vowed to bring Banner back to the States for studying, and has gone so far as to bring in Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), the Russian born, English raised soldier known for his tenacity. After two failed attempts at capturing Banner, Ross and Blonsky conspire to infect Blonsky with the same gamma radiation that transformed Banner, only at a lower dose. Just to even the playing field a bit. This back fires when Banner visits his old love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and a maximum carnage battle ensues on a college campus. Blonsky becomes addicted to the radiation, and soon turns into Abomination, sort of a Hulk meets Stegosaurus. Epic battle in Harlem that ends in... I'm not going to tell you the ending. Go see the movie.
Yes, I do in fact recommend this film. The comics and TV show always managed to find the balance between the sublime inner-torment of the character, and the utter ridiculousness of the fact that he's a scientist turned Not-so-Jolly Green Giant. That's where Ang Lee's film failed. He took the subject matter too seriously. But Leterrier found the balance. He injected his film with enough to make the character seem human, one who the audience could connect with. But he kept in the humour, and just a smidgen of camp.
Normally I don't do this, but I have to give HUGE props to Craig Armstrong, the composer. He incorporated some of the TV show's original music into his score. I particularly enjoyed his use of the sad walking away music (this piece of music right here).
The thing about Edward Norton (American History X, Fight Club) is that he is such a talented and versatile actor, yet this doesn't somehow seem beneath him as an actor. This could be that the landscape of superhero movies has changed, with such noted actors as Ian McKellen, Robert Downey, Jr, Kevin Spacey and anyone in the principle cast of Batman Begins not named Katie Holmes, taking on roles in the superhero genre. Norton takes on the difficult role of Banner, and makes it his own.
It ranks up there as one of the better heroic performances in the genre, certainly miles ahead of Eric Bana's, but he doesn't wow me in the role, as Bale and Downey, Jr. did in Batman Begins and Iron Man, respectively.
I think the strongest performances belong to the two villains, of all people, Blonsky and Gen. Ross. Roth (Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms) never goes over the top with Blonsky/Abomination, almost playing him as a junkie. And Hurt (Into the Wild, A History of Violence), going in the opposite direction, plays an often cartoonish villain with the right amount of serious vigour, and goofy, overdrawn mannerisms. His performance comes off as an odd mesh between Patton and Carter Pueterschmidt (that's a Family Guy reference, second one of the review).
But while this film is clearly a step up from the previous effort, it lacks the social consciousness, or the stunning introverted look at the character that other superhero films have offered.
This marks the end of the official review. In the next paragraph, I'm going to geek out a bit, and it does contain spoilers as to the end of the movie. If you would not like to read the spoilers, surf over to another page.
*I hope that Marvel studios isn't just toying with us on the prospects of an all star The Avengers movie. If you remember from the end of Iron Man, Samuel L. Jackson showed up as Nick Fury, recruiting Stark to join a "new team." Well, at the end of The Incredible Hulk, we get a shot of Banner learning to control the Hulk, cut to Gen. Ross in a bar, in walks Downey, Jr. as Stark, looking to recruit Banner for a "new team." With Captain America and Thor movies in the works, scheduled to be released ahead of The Avengers, it is safe to speculate they are planning an all star Avengers movie. Not to mention, that the Captain America film is called The First Avenger: Captain America. If Marvel is smart with the marketing, and no one has ever accused them of not being smart in that area... they could open up the summer with Cpt. America, and close it with The Avengers. It's too bad Marvel's film licensing is spread out all over the various studios, because then they could at least attempt cameos from other stars/heroes.
END SPOILER
3.5 Stars
It's easy to restart a franchise when enough time has passed to wash the bad taste of a terrible cinematic outing out of the collective mouths of the movie going public. Just ask Christopher Nolan, who successfully restarted the Batman franchise following Joel Schumacher's failed attempts at the caped crusader. But what about just five years later, when the stench of failure still lingers? Louis Leterrier decided to find out by rebooting The Incredible Hulk, and where the pairing of Ang Lee and Eric Bana failed (which was everywhere), Leterrier and Edward Norton pass with flying colours, even if they only manage to produce a slightly better than average superhero flick.
Leterrier throws caution to the wind and decides to completely ignore the previous film, and instead take it on a new path, that parallels the iconic 70's TV show. Provided only a brief, yet informative exposition, we join Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) in self-imposed exile in Brazil, working at a bottling plant by day, conducting his bio-chemical research at night. Gen. Ross has (William Hurt) has vowed to bring Banner back to the States for studying, and has gone so far as to bring in Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), the Russian born, English raised soldier known for his tenacity. After two failed attempts at capturing Banner, Ross and Blonsky conspire to infect Blonsky with the same gamma radiation that transformed Banner, only at a lower dose. Just to even the playing field a bit. This back fires when Banner visits his old love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), and a maximum carnage battle ensues on a college campus. Blonsky becomes addicted to the radiation, and soon turns into Abomination, sort of a Hulk meets Stegosaurus. Epic battle in Harlem that ends in... I'm not going to tell you the ending. Go see the movie.
Yes, I do in fact recommend this film. The comics and TV show always managed to find the balance between the sublime inner-torment of the character, and the utter ridiculousness of the fact that he's a scientist turned Not-so-Jolly Green Giant. That's where Ang Lee's film failed. He took the subject matter too seriously. But Leterrier found the balance. He injected his film with enough to make the character seem human, one who the audience could connect with. But he kept in the humour, and just a smidgen of camp.
Normally I don't do this, but I have to give HUGE props to Craig Armstrong, the composer. He incorporated some of the TV show's original music into his score. I particularly enjoyed his use of the sad walking away music (this piece of music right here).
The thing about Edward Norton (American History X, Fight Club) is that he is such a talented and versatile actor, yet this doesn't somehow seem beneath him as an actor. This could be that the landscape of superhero movies has changed, with such noted actors as Ian McKellen, Robert Downey, Jr, Kevin Spacey and anyone in the principle cast of Batman Begins not named Katie Holmes, taking on roles in the superhero genre. Norton takes on the difficult role of Banner, and makes it his own.
It ranks up there as one of the better heroic performances in the genre, certainly miles ahead of Eric Bana's, but he doesn't wow me in the role, as Bale and Downey, Jr. did in Batman Begins and Iron Man, respectively.
I think the strongest performances belong to the two villains, of all people, Blonsky and Gen. Ross. Roth (Reservoir Dogs, Four Rooms) never goes over the top with Blonsky/Abomination, almost playing him as a junkie. And Hurt (Into the Wild, A History of Violence), going in the opposite direction, plays an often cartoonish villain with the right amount of serious vigour, and goofy, overdrawn mannerisms. His performance comes off as an odd mesh between Patton and Carter Pueterschmidt (that's a Family Guy reference, second one of the review).
But while this film is clearly a step up from the previous effort, it lacks the social consciousness, or the stunning introverted look at the character that other superhero films have offered.
This marks the end of the official review. In the next paragraph, I'm going to geek out a bit, and it does contain spoilers as to the end of the movie. If you would not like to read the spoilers, surf over to another page.
*I hope that Marvel studios isn't just toying with us on the prospects of an all star The Avengers movie. If you remember from the end of Iron Man, Samuel L. Jackson showed up as Nick Fury, recruiting Stark to join a "new team." Well, at the end of The Incredible Hulk, we get a shot of Banner learning to control the Hulk, cut to Gen. Ross in a bar, in walks Downey, Jr. as Stark, looking to recruit Banner for a "new team." With Captain America and Thor movies in the works, scheduled to be released ahead of The Avengers, it is safe to speculate they are planning an all star Avengers movie. Not to mention, that the Captain America film is called The First Avenger: Captain America. If Marvel is smart with the marketing, and no one has ever accused them of not being smart in that area... they could open up the summer with Cpt. America, and close it with The Avengers. It's too bad Marvel's film licensing is spread out all over the various studios, because then they could at least attempt cameos from other stars/heroes.
END SPOILER
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Sex and the City: The Movie
Sex and the City: The Movie
3 Stars
Remember how last week it pained me to rate Indiana Jones 4 so low at 3 stars? This week... it pains me more to rate Sex and the City so high at 3 stars. But it's not that I liked it. But from the completely objective film critic standpoint... it wasn't as completely terrible as I thought it was going to be.
Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristen Davis and Cynthia Nixon return as Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in the spin off movie of the hit HBO series. What have they been doing in the four years since we last saw them? Finding love, starting families, pursuing careers. Lots of sex. Oh and Carrie's getting married to Mr. Big (Chris Noth).
Let me get the completely objective film critic stuff out of the way first. One problem in adapting a TV show for the big screen is overcoming the episodic nature of the show. The show was half an hour long. Writer/director Michael Patrick King had to stretch the already thin premise (as Brian Griffin once commented on an episode of Family Guy: "So... this show is about three whores and their grandmother?") from half an hour to a full TWO AND A HALF HOURS! What we were given was a sloppy, convoluted mess of a film that had little direction.
It was trying to take a cue from Love Actually by interweaving multiple story lines into one over all plot. But Love Actually was able to deftly maneuver between the several sub-plots. Sex and the City wasn't. There should have been one story that was the primary focus, not four (in a sense, five).
And the Cinderella subtext was either the worst analogy ever, or the worst deus ex machina ever, I have yet to decide, or even figure out, which it was.
I have caught a few episodes of the series. I will admit to that. And this film felt like nothing more than a really long episode. When it comes to cinematic versions of current or recent television shows, there needs to be some expansion on the world of the show. I had the same criticism for The Simpsons Movie, where it didn't "go as far" as it should have. Both flicks just felt like long episodes, there wasn't a real special cinematic quality to them.
On the plus, all involved put forth strong performances. Even if we're just talking an extended version of their TV characters. It worked to their advantage to do the movie so soon after the show had ended. They weren't too far removed from the characters. Particularly Parker and Noth, they slipped back into the characters and put forth some relatively compelling scenes.
But through it all... as a critic I'll give it props. It wasn't completely terrible. There is an audience for it. Women. The ladies will love this movie. And that's why it's a PERFECT girls night out movie. It is NOT a date movie, however. Ladies, leave your boyfriends/fiancees/husbands at home. Guys, go watch Indiana Jones.
As a guy myself, I'm pretty sure we're protected from this film by several parts of the Geneva Convention. For guys, there is nothing to like about this film. It's girls talking about girl stuff for two and a half hours. And it's not even interesting girl stuff.
I consider myself to be a relatively smart person. And it bugged me that the characters were so vapid and shallow. But beyond that, I don't know what infuriates me more: that there are people who are actually like that, or that there are people who want to be like that.
Like I said, completely objective critic P.O.V., ladies will love it, and the film is not without it's merits. But guys, seriously, avoid at all costs.
-Brodie Mann
3 Stars
Remember how last week it pained me to rate Indiana Jones 4 so low at 3 stars? This week... it pains me more to rate Sex and the City so high at 3 stars. But it's not that I liked it. But from the completely objective film critic standpoint... it wasn't as completely terrible as I thought it was going to be.
Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristen Davis and Cynthia Nixon return as Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in the spin off movie of the hit HBO series. What have they been doing in the four years since we last saw them? Finding love, starting families, pursuing careers. Lots of sex. Oh and Carrie's getting married to Mr. Big (Chris Noth).
Let me get the completely objective film critic stuff out of the way first. One problem in adapting a TV show for the big screen is overcoming the episodic nature of the show. The show was half an hour long. Writer/director Michael Patrick King had to stretch the already thin premise (as Brian Griffin once commented on an episode of Family Guy: "So... this show is about three whores and their grandmother?") from half an hour to a full TWO AND A HALF HOURS! What we were given was a sloppy, convoluted mess of a film that had little direction.
It was trying to take a cue from Love Actually by interweaving multiple story lines into one over all plot. But Love Actually was able to deftly maneuver between the several sub-plots. Sex and the City wasn't. There should have been one story that was the primary focus, not four (in a sense, five).
And the Cinderella subtext was either the worst analogy ever, or the worst deus ex machina ever, I have yet to decide, or even figure out, which it was.
I have caught a few episodes of the series. I will admit to that. And this film felt like nothing more than a really long episode. When it comes to cinematic versions of current or recent television shows, there needs to be some expansion on the world of the show. I had the same criticism for The Simpsons Movie, where it didn't "go as far" as it should have. Both flicks just felt like long episodes, there wasn't a real special cinematic quality to them.
On the plus, all involved put forth strong performances. Even if we're just talking an extended version of their TV characters. It worked to their advantage to do the movie so soon after the show had ended. They weren't too far removed from the characters. Particularly Parker and Noth, they slipped back into the characters and put forth some relatively compelling scenes.
But through it all... as a critic I'll give it props. It wasn't completely terrible. There is an audience for it. Women. The ladies will love this movie. And that's why it's a PERFECT girls night out movie. It is NOT a date movie, however. Ladies, leave your boyfriends/fiancees/husbands at home. Guys, go watch Indiana Jones.
As a guy myself, I'm pretty sure we're protected from this film by several parts of the Geneva Convention. For guys, there is nothing to like about this film. It's girls talking about girl stuff for two and a half hours. And it's not even interesting girl stuff.
I consider myself to be a relatively smart person. And it bugged me that the characters were so vapid and shallow. But beyond that, I don't know what infuriates me more: that there are people who are actually like that, or that there are people who want to be like that.
Like I said, completely objective critic P.O.V., ladies will love it, and the film is not without it's merits. But guys, seriously, avoid at all costs.
-Brodie Mann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
