WALL-E
DVD- 4 Stars
I already posted a review for WALL-E. You can read that here. This review is about the DVD itself.
First off, the standard bonus feature for DVD's... Deleted scenes. For me, when it comes to deleted scenes, I like ones that may have been cut for time, or were interesting, but didn't make sense, something that makes them worth watching. And while the two provided are in fact alternate takes on existing scenes, and Andrew Stanton's director's commentary on the scenes themselves explains why they were taken out (story changes), they don't really provide enough entertainment to keep one interested.
Speaking of Andrew Stanton's commentary, his running commentary throughout the entire film is worth listening to. He provides some valuable production insights into the developement of not only the character of Wall-E, but how the film and it's story came to be. This was a passion project for Stanton, and by all accounts, it shouldn't have worked. Basically a silent animated film about a robot who falls in love. That's the driving force behind the movie. But he talks about all the planning that went into it to make it work. And he does make it work.
As with all Pixar films, the short film that accompanied the theatrical release is included on the DVD, as well as an additional short exploring a minor character named BURN-E, that plotwise, takes place at the same time as the main feature. Just as good as the film.
The real gem of the DVD is the "Building Worlds with Sound" feature, because not only does it do an intensive study on how they did the sound effects for WALL-E, which is an SFX heavy film, but also the history of SFX at Disney, exploring the career of legendary sound man Ben Burtt, who also supplied the voice of WALL-E.
For the movie alone this one is worth the rent, but the SFX documentary, animated shorts and director's commentary make it one to own.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Quantam of Solace
Quantum of Solace
4 Stars
When one walks into a Bond film, one expects an air of class, suaveness and a certain something that elevates it above your average spy/action flick. That's not entirely so with Quantum of Solace. But with the new direction the Bond films seem to be taking, is that a bad thing. Yes. And no.
Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where 2006's Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond taking Mr. White captive in an effort to figure out what led Vesper Lynd to double cross MI6. This leads to a mysterious collective of business men, including Dominic Greene, a wealthy environmentalist with eyes on controlling Bolivia's water supply. Beautiful location shooting, the always lovely Bond girls, and intense action sequences highlight this recent entry into the Bond cannon.
While there is still a distinction between the two super cinema spies, Jason Bourne and James Bond, with each new Bond film, the line continues to blur. Untill 06's Casino Royale, Bond was suave, charming, gadget intensive, over-the top action, and humourous. Bourne was stripped down, gritty, brains, brawn and not much else, over the top, but more direct action sequences. There were clear stylistic differences between the two, and no one would dare confuse them. But following the success of the Bourne saga, and the diminishing critical acclaim for the Brosnan Bond flicks, producers and filmmakers decided to follow a similar Bournian path with the new films.
The performance of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ranks as not only one of the finest in the Bond catalogue, but in the genre, and of the year. He brings an emotional depth to a character traditionally played as emotionally detached. That's not to say the character was flat, just... in control. Craig not only launches himself to another tier of acting, but the character to a whole new level.
But this brings up the aforementioned conflict. This new Bond shows off not only the evolution of the character, but the evolution of the spy genre and the evolution of cinema in general. From Sean Connery in Bond's debut in Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan's Bond swan song Die Another Day, there was always a knowing wink that the action was fictionally over the top, as were the gadgets and what not. That's what made Bond such an admirable hero. He was played as a larger than life character who couldn't possibly be real.
The conflict is, do we want the old Bond? Or is this new Bond where it's at? There's part of me that wish it was the way it was, the old Bond. But as I mentioned, the character, the genre and movies in general have all evolved since 1962, hell since 2002 (Die Another Day). So Bond is just adjusting to the times.
I think director Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) knew exactly where to put the character. In not just a personal moral dilema to explore his raw emotions, but in a professional dilema, and have the two decidedly cross.
And that brings him to Dominic Greene, one of the more fascinating villains in Bond history. He was brought to life by French actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Marie Antoinette). Amalric plays Greene with restrained bombacity. Yeah... I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one. He's everything you ever liked about the villains, but reigns in the performance to bring a sense of reality to the character. Sure guys like Dr. Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin and even Le Chiffre couldn't possibly exist, but Greene, there's a very real chance of it. And that's pretty scary.
And dear lord are the Bond girls ever beautiful. Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko (Max Payne, Paris, je t'aime) as the deeply troubled and vengeful Camile gives great life to the Bond girl, the character type which has gotten completely ridiculous in the more recent entries. Sure Eva Green's Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale was great. But did anyone really buy Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? Especially one named Dr. Christmas Jones? Though conflict continues when a low level agent babysits and subsequently sleeps with Bond. She is just as absurdly named, with the moniker Strawberry Fields, though the relatively unknown Gemma Arternon brings beauty, grace and depth to her character's brief stint on camera.
As it's own movie, leaving the Bond legacy behind, it's a damn fine movie. But you can't rate it without looking into the legacy. It suffers from the same thing that makes it great. Progress. Though I'm glad it's progressing. It makes for much more interesting films.
4 Stars
When one walks into a Bond film, one expects an air of class, suaveness and a certain something that elevates it above your average spy/action flick. That's not entirely so with Quantum of Solace. But with the new direction the Bond films seem to be taking, is that a bad thing. Yes. And no.
Quantum of Solace picks up immediately where 2006's Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond taking Mr. White captive in an effort to figure out what led Vesper Lynd to double cross MI6. This leads to a mysterious collective of business men, including Dominic Greene, a wealthy environmentalist with eyes on controlling Bolivia's water supply. Beautiful location shooting, the always lovely Bond girls, and intense action sequences highlight this recent entry into the Bond cannon.
While there is still a distinction between the two super cinema spies, Jason Bourne and James Bond, with each new Bond film, the line continues to blur. Untill 06's Casino Royale, Bond was suave, charming, gadget intensive, over-the top action, and humourous. Bourne was stripped down, gritty, brains, brawn and not much else, over the top, but more direct action sequences. There were clear stylistic differences between the two, and no one would dare confuse them. But following the success of the Bourne saga, and the diminishing critical acclaim for the Brosnan Bond flicks, producers and filmmakers decided to follow a similar Bournian path with the new films.
The performance of Daniel Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) ranks as not only one of the finest in the Bond catalogue, but in the genre, and of the year. He brings an emotional depth to a character traditionally played as emotionally detached. That's not to say the character was flat, just... in control. Craig not only launches himself to another tier of acting, but the character to a whole new level.
But this brings up the aforementioned conflict. This new Bond shows off not only the evolution of the character, but the evolution of the spy genre and the evolution of cinema in general. From Sean Connery in Bond's debut in Dr. No, to Pierce Brosnan's Bond swan song Die Another Day, there was always a knowing wink that the action was fictionally over the top, as were the gadgets and what not. That's what made Bond such an admirable hero. He was played as a larger than life character who couldn't possibly be real.
The conflict is, do we want the old Bond? Or is this new Bond where it's at? There's part of me that wish it was the way it was, the old Bond. But as I mentioned, the character, the genre and movies in general have all evolved since 1962, hell since 2002 (Die Another Day). So Bond is just adjusting to the times.
I think director Marc Foster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) knew exactly where to put the character. In not just a personal moral dilema to explore his raw emotions, but in a professional dilema, and have the two decidedly cross.
And that brings him to Dominic Greene, one of the more fascinating villains in Bond history. He was brought to life by French actor Mathieu Amalric (Munich, Marie Antoinette). Amalric plays Greene with restrained bombacity. Yeah... I know, an oxymoron if there ever was one. He's everything you ever liked about the villains, but reigns in the performance to bring a sense of reality to the character. Sure guys like Dr. Julius No, Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin and even Le Chiffre couldn't possibly exist, but Greene, there's a very real chance of it. And that's pretty scary.
And dear lord are the Bond girls ever beautiful. Ukrainian actress Olga Kurylenko (Max Payne, Paris, je t'aime) as the deeply troubled and vengeful Camile gives great life to the Bond girl, the character type which has gotten completely ridiculous in the more recent entries. Sure Eva Green's Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale was great. But did anyone really buy Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? Especially one named Dr. Christmas Jones? Though conflict continues when a low level agent babysits and subsequently sleeps with Bond. She is just as absurdly named, with the moniker Strawberry Fields, though the relatively unknown Gemma Arternon brings beauty, grace and depth to her character's brief stint on camera.
As it's own movie, leaving the Bond legacy behind, it's a damn fine movie. But you can't rate it without looking into the legacy. It suffers from the same thing that makes it great. Progress. Though I'm glad it's progressing. It makes for much more interesting films.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
W.
W.
4.5 Stars
No one knows controversial films about Presidents better than Oliver Stone. See JFK and Nixon for proof. But he made those with a nice 20 - 30 year cushion between film and subject. How does one tactfully take on the life of not only the sitting president... but a now unpopular one? With a life and presidency fill with controversy, the story of George W. Bush would not be an easy one to bring to film, especially with a few months still left in his term in office. But the decidedly left Oliver Stone did a phenomenal job.
W. is not so much an indictment of Bush as president or as a person, but an exploration of both. Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, Goonies) stars as the titular president, and brings a humanity to the character that through the past 8 years, a humanity that we as the American people hadn't been privy too. He plays the character with respect, careful to stay far away from charicature.
There were certain members of the supporting cast who did unfortunately walk, and subsequently cross, the line of character and charicature. I couldn't get past the noticably awkward gruff voice Jeffery Wright (Casino Royale) uses for Colin Powell. Or the bizzare make-up on Thandie Newton (Crash) to make her look like Condoleeza Rice.
4.5 Stars
No one knows controversial films about Presidents better than Oliver Stone. See JFK and Nixon for proof. But he made those with a nice 20 - 30 year cushion between film and subject. How does one tactfully take on the life of not only the sitting president... but a now unpopular one? With a life and presidency fill with controversy, the story of George W. Bush would not be an easy one to bring to film, especially with a few months still left in his term in office. But the decidedly left Oliver Stone did a phenomenal job.
W. is not so much an indictment of Bush as president or as a person, but an exploration of both. Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men, Goonies) stars as the titular president, and brings a humanity to the character that through the past 8 years, a humanity that we as the American people hadn't been privy too. He plays the character with respect, careful to stay far away from charicature.
There were certain members of the supporting cast who did unfortunately walk, and subsequently cross, the line of character and charicature. I couldn't get past the noticably awkward gruff voice Jeffery Wright (Casino Royale) uses for Colin Powell. Or the bizzare make-up on Thandie Newton (Crash) to make her look like Condoleeza Rice.
There were, however, outstanding performances given by the supporting cast. James Cromwell (L.A. Confidential) and Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri Make A Porno) as Bush Sr. and Laura Bush, respectively, were the shining stars of the non Brolin variety. With Richard Dreyfus (Jaws) and Scott Glen (Backdraft) as Cheney and Rumsfeld also clocking in outstanding performances. If Brolin doesn't garner a nomination come award season (and he damn well should), on of these four definitely will.
I think Stone's own reputation is what did him in with this film. He's known for being a leftist conspiracy nut, with a flare for style and audacity. But while W. was a genuinely good film. It was mostly a bland entry into the Stone canon.
As I said, it was a damn fine film, but safe and tame. You will walk away from this film respecting Bush as a man, as a person, if not as a politician.
I think Stone's own reputation is what did him in with this film. He's known for being a leftist conspiracy nut, with a flare for style and audacity. But while W. was a genuinely good film. It was mostly a bland entry into the Stone canon.
As I said, it was a damn fine film, but safe and tame. You will walk away from this film respecting Bush as a man, as a person, if not as a politician.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
