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.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
How To Lose Friends and Alienate People
How To Lose Friends and Alienate People
3 Stars
Simon Pegg has had tremendous success in his native UK, and his projects have done well state-side as well. But can he carry a U.S. film? Short answer: Yes, but not yet. In my opinion anyway.
How To Lose Friends and Alienate People is based on the book of the same name by Toby Young, a British Journalist who traveled to the states to pursue a job at Vanity Fair. Sidney Young (Simon Pegg) is the ficitional representation of Toby, and his small time UK magazine caught the attention of Sharpe's editor Clayton Harding (Jeff Bridges) who asks Young to come write for their entertainment and lifestyles section. Young's borish, obnoxious and cavalier behaviour, however, clashes with the upscale temperments of the magazine's writers, editors and clientele. He soon learns, with the help of fellow writer Alison (Kirsten Dunst) and uber-publicist to the stars, Elanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson) that if you want to go anywhere, you have to play the game.
Rarely do I complain that a movie is too long. I have absolutely no problem sitting down and watching a 3.5 hour movie. But the problem with this movie is that it's overly long. At nearly 2 hours, a good 25 minutes longer than it needed to be. It could be argued that some of the awkward scenes were put in to heighten the awkwardness of the character. But most of the time it comes off as just... awkward. A good portion of the time I was squirming in my seat out of discomfort.
But to the credit of the actors, they did a pretty good job with what they were given. They weren't given much. Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hott Fuzz) proved he can move comfortably outside of the Edgar Wright collaboration that has treated him so well in years past. But his effectiveness in carrying a movie has yet to be proven. Luckily his next major American release is an ensemble (Star Trek, he plays Scotty).
I still have yet to see anything of value (outside her stunning looks) in Megan Fox (Transformers, that's about it). She just so happens to be the IT girl of the moment, which gives dubious credence to her casting in just about anything. Kirstin Dunst is still somewhat of an oddity. Her script choices never seem to make use of her talent. Start picking edgier fair, Ms. Dunst. Stay away from the romantic comedies. You're treading the waters Meg Ryan drowned in.
The film wasn't completely dreadful, it did find the humour from a cliche fish out of water story. Something tells me the real life stories were much more interesting than the film has you believe, but the film was restricted by it's attempts to appeal to a broader audience (and be a cliche rom-com). Had a different director (Robert B. Weide's directorial filmography includes just a handful of biographical documentaries and few episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") taken on the subject matter, say Alexander Payne, it probably would have been a better film. Edgier, tighter, funnier, better.
At best, it's an enthusiastic "meh." I don't completely endorse nor completely condemn this film. It had it's moments, but not enough to warrant anything more than 3 stars. It gets to three on Pegg alone. Wait for it to show up on HBO, bypass the theatrical and DVD releases.
Rarely do I complain that a movie is too long. I have absolutely no problem sitting down and watching a 3.5 hour movie. But the problem with this movie is that it's overly long. At nearly 2 hours, a good 25 minutes longer than it needed to be. It could be argued that some of the awkward scenes were put in to heighten the awkwardness of the character. But most of the time it comes off as just... awkward. A good portion of the time I was squirming in my seat out of discomfort.
But to the credit of the actors, they did a pretty good job with what they were given. They weren't given much. Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hott Fuzz) proved he can move comfortably outside of the Edgar Wright collaboration that has treated him so well in years past. But his effectiveness in carrying a movie has yet to be proven. Luckily his next major American release is an ensemble (Star Trek, he plays Scotty).
I still have yet to see anything of value (outside her stunning looks) in Megan Fox (Transformers, that's about it). She just so happens to be the IT girl of the moment, which gives dubious credence to her casting in just about anything. Kirstin Dunst is still somewhat of an oddity. Her script choices never seem to make use of her talent. Start picking edgier fair, Ms. Dunst. Stay away from the romantic comedies. You're treading the waters Meg Ryan drowned in.
The film wasn't completely dreadful, it did find the humour from a cliche fish out of water story. Something tells me the real life stories were much more interesting than the film has you believe, but the film was restricted by it's attempts to appeal to a broader audience (and be a cliche rom-com). Had a different director (Robert B. Weide's directorial filmography includes just a handful of biographical documentaries and few episodes of "Curb Your Enthusiasm") taken on the subject matter, say Alexander Payne, it probably would have been a better film. Edgier, tighter, funnier, better.
At best, it's an enthusiastic "meh." I don't completely endorse nor completely condemn this film. It had it's moments, but not enough to warrant anything more than 3 stars. It gets to three on Pegg alone. Wait for it to show up on HBO, bypass the theatrical and DVD releases.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Burn After Reading
Burn After Reading
4 stars
How dark and violent was last year's Coen Bros. offering No Country for Old Men? Now... imagine that... only funny. And without Tommy Lee Jones. Such is the case of Burn After Reading. It's dark. It's violent. It's hilarious. Really it is. In a year filled with several funny movies, this is another interesting entry into that cannon.
After finding what they believe to be top secret government documents, personal trainers Linda and Chad (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) engage CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) in a blackmailing scheme for the return of said documents. Unbeknownst to Linda, Chad and Osborne, the documents are actualy Osborne's personal finance records, which his wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), had prepared in advance of the divorce papers she is filing. The divorce papers are because she is leaving Osborne for U.S. Marshall Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).
Sound complicated? It's not, really. The comedy doesn't draw from how they're connected, but from that they're even connected in the first place. Rarely does Brad Pitt take on roles that challenge his comedic prowess, but he was really able to sink his teeth into a role that let him shine. He showed glimpses of timing in the Ocean's saga and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this was his moment to prove himself, and prove himself he did. With a cast of great actors playing great characters (including Clooney, Swinton, McDormand and the always fantastic Malkovich), Pitt was truly the one to watch.
The thing about the Coen brothers, and I have yet to decide if this is a good thing or not, is that even when it seems like they're phoning it in, they're still a cut above the rest. They've been funnier (The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?) and they've been darker (Fargo, No Country For Old Men), but even when they're just so-so (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers), they're still watchable, if for nothing more than the quirkiness of their scripts. They were quirky and bizarre before it was trendy, and continue to transcend the palate of "quirky indie" to always remain a level above everyone else. With stories about wholly unlikeable characters, you find yourself siding with them for some reason or another.
Such is the case with Burn After Reading. It's a story populated with cheaters, vain people, and all around total assholes. The few "good people" are disregarded by the rest, and Pitt, while generally good, is still an annoying D-bag. But you end up liking them for some reason. Can't put my finger on it.
When compared to their previous effort, No Country For Old Men, this comes off as an easy follow-up, meant to rest their creative processes, and hopefully prepping for something bigger and better. But I would never decry someone to take an alternate route with a new film. And while we've seen similar efforts from the Coens, I don't feel they've ever quite so successfully fused the comedy and the dark. They are filmmakers for which the term "black comedy" was practically invented.
4 stars
How dark and violent was last year's Coen Bros. offering No Country for Old Men? Now... imagine that... only funny. And without Tommy Lee Jones. Such is the case of Burn After Reading. It's dark. It's violent. It's hilarious. Really it is. In a year filled with several funny movies, this is another interesting entry into that cannon.
After finding what they believe to be top secret government documents, personal trainers Linda and Chad (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) engage CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) in a blackmailing scheme for the return of said documents. Unbeknownst to Linda, Chad and Osborne, the documents are actualy Osborne's personal finance records, which his wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton), had prepared in advance of the divorce papers she is filing. The divorce papers are because she is leaving Osborne for U.S. Marshall Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney).
Sound complicated? It's not, really. The comedy doesn't draw from how they're connected, but from that they're even connected in the first place. Rarely does Brad Pitt take on roles that challenge his comedic prowess, but he was really able to sink his teeth into a role that let him shine. He showed glimpses of timing in the Ocean's saga and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, but this was his moment to prove himself, and prove himself he did. With a cast of great actors playing great characters (including Clooney, Swinton, McDormand and the always fantastic Malkovich), Pitt was truly the one to watch.
The thing about the Coen brothers, and I have yet to decide if this is a good thing or not, is that even when it seems like they're phoning it in, they're still a cut above the rest. They've been funnier (The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Art Thou?) and they've been darker (Fargo, No Country For Old Men), but even when they're just so-so (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers), they're still watchable, if for nothing more than the quirkiness of their scripts. They were quirky and bizarre before it was trendy, and continue to transcend the palate of "quirky indie" to always remain a level above everyone else. With stories about wholly unlikeable characters, you find yourself siding with them for some reason or another.
Such is the case with Burn After Reading. It's a story populated with cheaters, vain people, and all around total assholes. The few "good people" are disregarded by the rest, and Pitt, while generally good, is still an annoying D-bag. But you end up liking them for some reason. Can't put my finger on it.
When compared to their previous effort, No Country For Old Men, this comes off as an easy follow-up, meant to rest their creative processes, and hopefully prepping for something bigger and better. But I would never decry someone to take an alternate route with a new film. And while we've seen similar efforts from the Coens, I don't feel they've ever quite so successfully fused the comedy and the dark. They are filmmakers for which the term "black comedy" was practically invented.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Paul Newman RIP 1925-2008
Legendary actor, race car driver, philanthropist, sauce maker, gentleman and all around cool guy Paul Newman passed away Friday after a long battle with cancer. He was 83.
As per usual, videos below:
From Cool Hand Luke:
From Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
From The Hustler:
From Slap Shot:
As per usual, videos below:
From Cool Hand Luke:
From Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
From The Hustler:
From Slap Shot:
Monday, August 18, 2008
Pineapple Express AND Tropic Thunder
I've been away for awhile, I know. Demands of the new job. But I'm returning with a double dose of reviews. Both comedies... both good.
Pineapple Express
4.5 Stars
There's something to be said for stoner comedies. Some people will get them. Some people won't. But they are generally funny if they aren't too reliant on cliched jokes. Judd Apatow is proving himself to be the Pixar of R-Rated comedies: he just can't seem to miss.
Dale (Seth Rogan) witnesses a dirty cop (Rosie Perez) and the city's most ruthless drug-lord (Gary Cole) murder a member of a rival drug cartel, and subsequently drops a joint in his panic. But this isn't any joint. This joint is some of the rarest weed on earth, the titular Pineapple Express. Since Ted Jones (Cole) is the primary supplier of it, he can easily track it to Dale and the dealer he bought it from, Saul (James Franco). Thus Dale and Saul embark in a game of cat and mouse, trying to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, all while trying to keep the groovy buzz going.
Apatow and Rogan have been ever pushing the boundries of the R-Rated comedy, ever since their break out success with The 40 Year Old Virgin. And this goes balls to the wall with action. The action comedy ground work laid down by Eddie Murphey in the 80's, coupled with the stoner-buddy comedies of Cheech and Chong makes for a potent combination, one that I was initially wary of. But I shouldn't have been. I should know that if it's done by Apatow and crew, I need not worry.
It could have been a dumb little flick about weed. It could have been a mediocre entry into the Apatow cannon. But the bar keeps getting pushed higher (no pun intended) and the boundries expand further and further.
I wouldn't say it's completely brilliant, but it is a mostly original entry into the stoner comedy sub-genre. It's one of the finer comedies to be released in recent years, especially amid all those *Insert random genre* Movie pieces of shit flicks that have been churned out with disturbing frequency.
The real hub of the film, the glue that kept it together, was James Franco. He takes a break from his more serious roles and takes on a role that he seems almost born to play. It's good to see an actor play a character that's out of his usual range and stock. It's like when you go back and watch Sean Penn as Jeff Spicolli.
I laughed the whole way through, and it probably hasn't been since Seth Rogan's previous flick, Superbad, that I laughed so hard and so consistently at a flick. Highly recommended.
Tropic Thunder
4 Stars
Perhaps my expectations on this one were too high. But I couldn't get into this one as much as I wanted to. It was good. I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, far from it. But I kinda wanted more. But Tom Cruise was the bomb.
Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, JR. play prima-donna stars in a new Vietnam War epic, who are dropped into an actual South-East Asian war zone when their on and off screen antics get to be too much for rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan). Stiller's action star Tugg Speedman, Black's comic actor Jeff Portney and Downey, Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus unfortunately don't know they're in a real warzone and continue "acting" through real raids, real kiddnappings and real deaths. Hilarity ensues.
It does. It really does. There are times when there are several in-jokes, where if you're an astute observer, as well as being well-versed in war flicks, you'll get the jokes. I got them, but I'm a film nerd like that. Everybody did a damn fine job playing off each other, and no one stole the show (except Tom Cruise).
But... I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I was just expecting more, I guess.
As for the controversy... To me, the retard thing wasn't that big of a deal. They weren't making fun of the mentally handicapped. They were making fun of actors who feel like they have to play a mentally handicapped people in order prove their worth as an actor, and the sometimes ignorance of the actual affliction. Same thing with Downey, Jr. in black face. He was making fun of "method acting." They're highlighting the extremes of each, blowing it out of proportion to comedic effect. And it worked.
I felt everyone did a good job. And especially Cruise's over-the-top cameo as bad ass movie producer. It almost seemed as if he was making fun of both his real life role as head of United Artists, and his role in Jerry Maguire. I dug it.
It was funny, I liked it, go see it in theatres... but to me, it was missing something that I just can't put my finger on.
Pineapple Express
4.5 Stars
There's something to be said for stoner comedies. Some people will get them. Some people won't. But they are generally funny if they aren't too reliant on cliched jokes. Judd Apatow is proving himself to be the Pixar of R-Rated comedies: he just can't seem to miss.
Dale (Seth Rogan) witnesses a dirty cop (Rosie Perez) and the city's most ruthless drug-lord (Gary Cole) murder a member of a rival drug cartel, and subsequently drops a joint in his panic. But this isn't any joint. This joint is some of the rarest weed on earth, the titular Pineapple Express. Since Ted Jones (Cole) is the primary supplier of it, he can easily track it to Dale and the dealer he bought it from, Saul (James Franco). Thus Dale and Saul embark in a game of cat and mouse, trying to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, all while trying to keep the groovy buzz going.
Apatow and Rogan have been ever pushing the boundries of the R-Rated comedy, ever since their break out success with The 40 Year Old Virgin. And this goes balls to the wall with action. The action comedy ground work laid down by Eddie Murphey in the 80's, coupled with the stoner-buddy comedies of Cheech and Chong makes for a potent combination, one that I was initially wary of. But I shouldn't have been. I should know that if it's done by Apatow and crew, I need not worry.
It could have been a dumb little flick about weed. It could have been a mediocre entry into the Apatow cannon. But the bar keeps getting pushed higher (no pun intended) and the boundries expand further and further.
I wouldn't say it's completely brilliant, but it is a mostly original entry into the stoner comedy sub-genre. It's one of the finer comedies to be released in recent years, especially amid all those *Insert random genre* Movie pieces of shit flicks that have been churned out with disturbing frequency.
The real hub of the film, the glue that kept it together, was James Franco. He takes a break from his more serious roles and takes on a role that he seems almost born to play. It's good to see an actor play a character that's out of his usual range and stock. It's like when you go back and watch Sean Penn as Jeff Spicolli.
I laughed the whole way through, and it probably hasn't been since Seth Rogan's previous flick, Superbad, that I laughed so hard and so consistently at a flick. Highly recommended.
Tropic Thunder
4 Stars
Perhaps my expectations on this one were too high. But I couldn't get into this one as much as I wanted to. It was good. I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, far from it. But I kinda wanted more. But Tom Cruise was the bomb.
Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, JR. play prima-donna stars in a new Vietnam War epic, who are dropped into an actual South-East Asian war zone when their on and off screen antics get to be too much for rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan). Stiller's action star Tugg Speedman, Black's comic actor Jeff Portney and Downey, Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus unfortunately don't know they're in a real warzone and continue "acting" through real raids, real kiddnappings and real deaths. Hilarity ensues.
It does. It really does. There are times when there are several in-jokes, where if you're an astute observer, as well as being well-versed in war flicks, you'll get the jokes. I got them, but I'm a film nerd like that. Everybody did a damn fine job playing off each other, and no one stole the show (except Tom Cruise).
But... I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I was just expecting more, I guess.
As for the controversy... To me, the retard thing wasn't that big of a deal. They weren't making fun of the mentally handicapped. They were making fun of actors who feel like they have to play a mentally handicapped people in order prove their worth as an actor, and the sometimes ignorance of the actual affliction. Same thing with Downey, Jr. in black face. He was making fun of "method acting." They're highlighting the extremes of each, blowing it out of proportion to comedic effect. And it worked.
I felt everyone did a good job. And especially Cruise's over-the-top cameo as bad ass movie producer. It almost seemed as if he was making fun of both his real life role as head of United Artists, and his role in Jerry Maguire. I dug it.
It was funny, I liked it, go see it in theatres... but to me, it was missing something that I just can't put my finger on.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Dear DC...
So, Brodie Fanns...
I've never really made an effort to hide that when it comes to the great Marvel vs. DC debate, I side with Marvel. I think their characters are better written and better developed. And Superman's kind of a pansy. He is. Face it.
Anyway, I came across this interesting article over at Movie Retriever, about the future of DC films. And it raises some very interesting points. Basically that while The Dark Knight is the greatest cinematic achievement known to man, woman, child and certain cave dwelling amphibians, two great movies out of three since the comic book genre caught fire seven years ago isn't exactly a stellar track record when compared to other comic book publishers, say for instance, Marvel, who have gone back and forth with their adaptations, but their top-tier flicks tend to be solid offerings.
So far DC's offered us two great Batman flicks, and a barely passable Superman retread. I would have liked to see Singer do to Superman what Nolan did with Batman. Forget the first franchise, and take it in a newer, more mature level. I don't mean "mature" in the boobies and swear words sense, but mature in the advanced story telling sense.
They had some great ideas for the future of DC and I agreed with some of them. It boils down to Keep Batman confined to his movies, Superman confined to his movies, set up a Wonder Woman franchise, keep her confined, and then bring out the B-Listers for crossovers (Green Lantern, Green Arrow, The Flash, Hawkgirl, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter). That's all well and good.
But I was discussing Batman, Superman and DC with a good friend of mine and came up with the following strategy:
Christopher Nolan, who is doing absolutely amazing things with Batman, signs a longterm contract with Warner Bros./DC. ties him to at least two more movies, with the allowance to do side projects if he so chooses (The Prestige, anyone?). But he is contracted for 2 more DC movies, at least.
The third Batman film needs to start introducing more aspects of the DC Universe, particularly Metropolis and Superman. And this is where he starts a creative collaboration with Bryan Singer.
For the next Superman movie... Singer basically needs to abandon the notion of tying the Routh Superman to the Reeve Superman, and take it in it's own direction. And he can start doing tie-ins and crossovers to the rest of the DC Universe, particularly Gotham City and Batman.
Now, Singer and Nolan do a full on creative collaboration for the subsequent films in their series'. Here's why... do a two part Batman/Superman flick, Nolan taking part I, Singer taking part II.
So the franchises would go in this order: Superman II, Batman III, Batman/Superman I, Batman/Superman II. In the second part, you could introduce some of the other DC heroes, though not in major roles. Oliver Queen/Green Arrow, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, and Wally West/The Flash.
You could do that to do introductions of characters. Then once you've got it all set, move on to the big Justice League Movie, and the runs of Batman and Superman with that, and spin off with the aforementioned heroes.
It follows an opposit pattern as Marvel, and it does away with the "Origins story" for them, because we're setting them up. Then once they get to their own flicks, they can jump right into their own stories.
It works. Trust me. You hear that, Joe Quesada. Put me in charge of cinematic development. Cause I'm a cat who knows what's what. Hells yeah.
- Brodie Mann
I've never really made an effort to hide that when it comes to the great Marvel vs. DC debate, I side with Marvel. I think their characters are better written and better developed. And Superman's kind of a pansy. He is. Face it.
Anyway, I came across this interesting article over at Movie Retriever, about the future of DC films. And it raises some very interesting points. Basically that while The Dark Knight is the greatest cinematic achievement known to man, woman, child and certain cave dwelling amphibians, two great movies out of three since the comic book genre caught fire seven years ago isn't exactly a stellar track record when compared to other comic book publishers, say for instance, Marvel, who have gone back and forth with their adaptations, but their top-tier flicks tend to be solid offerings.
So far DC's offered us two great Batman flicks, and a barely passable Superman retread. I would have liked to see Singer do to Superman what Nolan did with Batman. Forget the first franchise, and take it in a newer, more mature level. I don't mean "mature" in the boobies and swear words sense, but mature in the advanced story telling sense.
They had some great ideas for the future of DC and I agreed with some of them. It boils down to Keep Batman confined to his movies, Superman confined to his movies, set up a Wonder Woman franchise, keep her confined, and then bring out the B-Listers for crossovers (Green Lantern, Green Arrow, The Flash, Hawkgirl, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter). That's all well and good.
But I was discussing Batman, Superman and DC with a good friend of mine and came up with the following strategy:
Christopher Nolan, who is doing absolutely amazing things with Batman, signs a longterm contract with Warner Bros./DC. ties him to at least two more movies, with the allowance to do side projects if he so chooses (The Prestige, anyone?). But he is contracted for 2 more DC movies, at least.
The third Batman film needs to start introducing more aspects of the DC Universe, particularly Metropolis and Superman. And this is where he starts a creative collaboration with Bryan Singer.
For the next Superman movie... Singer basically needs to abandon the notion of tying the Routh Superman to the Reeve Superman, and take it in it's own direction. And he can start doing tie-ins and crossovers to the rest of the DC Universe, particularly Gotham City and Batman.
Now, Singer and Nolan do a full on creative collaboration for the subsequent films in their series'. Here's why... do a two part Batman/Superman flick, Nolan taking part I, Singer taking part II.
So the franchises would go in this order: Superman II, Batman III, Batman/Superman I, Batman/Superman II. In the second part, you could introduce some of the other DC heroes, though not in major roles. Oliver Queen/Green Arrow, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, and Wally West/The Flash.
You could do that to do introductions of characters. Then once you've got it all set, move on to the big Justice League Movie, and the runs of Batman and Superman with that, and spin off with the aforementioned heroes.
It follows an opposit pattern as Marvel, and it does away with the "Origins story" for them, because we're setting them up. Then once they get to their own flicks, they can jump right into their own stories.
It works. Trust me. You hear that, Joe Quesada. Put me in charge of cinematic development. Cause I'm a cat who knows what's what. Hells yeah.
- Brodie Mann
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Dark Knight aka BEST MOVIE EVAR!
The Dark Knight
5 Stars
There's been a lot of advance press concerning this new Batman, The Dark Knight flick. And I know a lot of you... well a lot of you probably already saw it. But for the 2 people in the civilized world who have yet to see it, and are sitting on their couch, reminiscing of the good old Jack Nicholson days of the Joker, wondering whether or not the film is worth all the positive press it's receiving. Wondering whether or not Heath Ledger's Joker really is Oscar worthy. Wondering if it does in fact live up to the hype. Well wonder no more, Brodie-maniacs. Cause as a person who actually saw the film, and as a well respected, admired, and not very well paid film critic, everything you've heard is not only true, but also a vast understatement of the true greatness of the film. I only give it 5 stars because that's how many my usual rating system would allow. On the IMDb, I gave it 10.
Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne/Batman, this time fighting a mysterious and demented criminal known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger). Aiding him in his fight against the scarred madman are his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine), the now Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), Gotham City D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), wise businessman Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce's former girlfriend, A.D.A. Rachel Dawes (this time played by a real actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal).
One thing the Batman franchise as a whole, from the comics to the movies to the animated shows and movies, has always done is blurred the line between hero and villain. Batman is a hero, but he's not a clear cut hero (like his DC counterpart, Superman). He fudges the moral and ethical line to take down the bad guy, and makes no effort to show remorse for doing so. So he's the hero, but he's no Boy Scout.
On the flipside of that, the villain isn't necessarily pure evil. The way John and Chris Nolan wrote the character, and to an even greater extent, how Ledger (Lords of Dogtown) played The Joker, presents the villain as doing villainous things, as being a morally devoid entity, as being chaos incarnate, but it's not entirely clear that his motives are all that wrong. Sure his methods are destructive, murderous and utterly criminal. But is chaos for the sake of chaos all that wrong?
And that's the magic of Chris Nolan's directing and writing. He upholds, skewers and satirizes the traditional comic book notion of Hero vs. Villain, all at the same time. To intensify the point even more, there's Dent's downward spiral from beam of hope D.A. to corrupt and deranged Two-Face, fascinatingly portrayed by Eckhart (Thank You for Smoking). Eckhart portrays the cool, confidence of a D.A. who champions the fall of organized crime. And for the first two acts, you believe in Harvey Dent as the symbol of all that is good in Gotham. Then, after certain events, he begins his rapid descent into cynicism and madness. And to a character shift like that takes a special kind of moxie. And Eckhart exudes the talant to do so.
But make no mistake, there is one clear hero amongst the villains and near-heroes- Lt. James Gordon. Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) brings gravitas to what has previously been nothing more than an ancillary character. And his desire to do good and keep the people of Gotham safe is the shining beacon of good in a city shrouded in moral ambiguity.
It would seem that the three supporters of Batman are the only three truly "good guys." Gordon, who we already talked about, but there's also Caine's (The Prestige) Alfred Pennyworth as the guiding voice of reason for Bruce. And there's Freeman's (Wanted) Lucius Fox, who, in a very poignant scene, objects to Batman's methods, offers to help, then tenders his resignation due to his objections. Proving that standing by one's ethic code is more important than the alleged greater good.
Nolan's direction was perfect. He paces the movie just right. You never look at your watch, in the entire two hours and thirty minutes, wondering when it's going to be over. In fact, once the credits start rolling, you're asking yourself "Wait... it's over? No, there has to be more." Part of that is due to Nolan's deep understanding of how to construct his characters in their action sequences.
I've saved the elephant in the living room for last. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. If you're a regular follower of my blog, you'll remember that I've been ranting and raving about his performance since the first teaser hit theatres back in December. And I did the appropriate memorial page when he passed in January. So it may seem like people have been fawning over his performance on the merit that he did pass away.
But oh how you would be wrong, if that's your mentality. Ledger digs way deep down to find the true essence of The Joker. He's a mystery. He's an enigma. And he is the personification of pure insanity, pure chaos. He exists to create anarchy. Ledger takes Joker's lack of real purpose and motivation to exemplify himself as a counterpoint to Christian Bale's Batman. The performance is not only the best cinematic villain ever (take that Hans Grueber), but it is also one of the most nuanced and perfect performances ever committed to film.
Ledger's performance is completely Oscar worthy. Ledger lost himself in the role, and it is pure acting, at it's core. And there are plenty of other aspects to this film that are Oscar worthy. It is not only the perfect super-hero movie, but it's a perfect crime drama epic, oddly reminiscent of Goodfellas and The Godfather.
I give it 5 stars, because it truley deserves all 5 of them, and then some.
- Brodie Mann
5 Stars
There's been a lot of advance press concerning this new Batman, The Dark Knight flick. And I know a lot of you... well a lot of you probably already saw it. But for the 2 people in the civilized world who have yet to see it, and are sitting on their couch, reminiscing of the good old Jack Nicholson days of the Joker, wondering whether or not the film is worth all the positive press it's receiving. Wondering whether or not Heath Ledger's Joker really is Oscar worthy. Wondering if it does in fact live up to the hype. Well wonder no more, Brodie-maniacs. Cause as a person who actually saw the film, and as a well respected, admired, and not very well paid film critic, everything you've heard is not only true, but also a vast understatement of the true greatness of the film. I only give it 5 stars because that's how many my usual rating system would allow. On the IMDb, I gave it 10.
Christian Bale returns as Bruce Wayne/Batman, this time fighting a mysterious and demented criminal known only as The Joker (Heath Ledger). Aiding him in his fight against the scarred madman are his trusty butler Alfred (Michael Caine), the now Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), Gotham City D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), wise businessman Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce's former girlfriend, A.D.A. Rachel Dawes (this time played by a real actress, Maggie Gyllenhaal).
One thing the Batman franchise as a whole, from the comics to the movies to the animated shows and movies, has always done is blurred the line between hero and villain. Batman is a hero, but he's not a clear cut hero (like his DC counterpart, Superman). He fudges the moral and ethical line to take down the bad guy, and makes no effort to show remorse for doing so. So he's the hero, but he's no Boy Scout.
On the flipside of that, the villain isn't necessarily pure evil. The way John and Chris Nolan wrote the character, and to an even greater extent, how Ledger (Lords of Dogtown) played The Joker, presents the villain as doing villainous things, as being a morally devoid entity, as being chaos incarnate, but it's not entirely clear that his motives are all that wrong. Sure his methods are destructive, murderous and utterly criminal. But is chaos for the sake of chaos all that wrong?
And that's the magic of Chris Nolan's directing and writing. He upholds, skewers and satirizes the traditional comic book notion of Hero vs. Villain, all at the same time. To intensify the point even more, there's Dent's downward spiral from beam of hope D.A. to corrupt and deranged Two-Face, fascinatingly portrayed by Eckhart (Thank You for Smoking). Eckhart portrays the cool, confidence of a D.A. who champions the fall of organized crime. And for the first two acts, you believe in Harvey Dent as the symbol of all that is good in Gotham. Then, after certain events, he begins his rapid descent into cynicism and madness. And to a character shift like that takes a special kind of moxie. And Eckhart exudes the talant to do so.
But make no mistake, there is one clear hero amongst the villains and near-heroes- Lt. James Gordon. Oldman (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) brings gravitas to what has previously been nothing more than an ancillary character. And his desire to do good and keep the people of Gotham safe is the shining beacon of good in a city shrouded in moral ambiguity.
It would seem that the three supporters of Batman are the only three truly "good guys." Gordon, who we already talked about, but there's also Caine's (The Prestige) Alfred Pennyworth as the guiding voice of reason for Bruce. And there's Freeman's (Wanted) Lucius Fox, who, in a very poignant scene, objects to Batman's methods, offers to help, then tenders his resignation due to his objections. Proving that standing by one's ethic code is more important than the alleged greater good.
Nolan's direction was perfect. He paces the movie just right. You never look at your watch, in the entire two hours and thirty minutes, wondering when it's going to be over. In fact, once the credits start rolling, you're asking yourself "Wait... it's over? No, there has to be more." Part of that is due to Nolan's deep understanding of how to construct his characters in their action sequences.
I've saved the elephant in the living room for last. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. If you're a regular follower of my blog, you'll remember that I've been ranting and raving about his performance since the first teaser hit theatres back in December. And I did the appropriate memorial page when he passed in January. So it may seem like people have been fawning over his performance on the merit that he did pass away.
But oh how you would be wrong, if that's your mentality. Ledger digs way deep down to find the true essence of The Joker. He's a mystery. He's an enigma. And he is the personification of pure insanity, pure chaos. He exists to create anarchy. Ledger takes Joker's lack of real purpose and motivation to exemplify himself as a counterpoint to Christian Bale's Batman. The performance is not only the best cinematic villain ever (take that Hans Grueber), but it is also one of the most nuanced and perfect performances ever committed to film.
Ledger's performance is completely Oscar worthy. Ledger lost himself in the role, and it is pure acting, at it's core. And there are plenty of other aspects to this film that are Oscar worthy. It is not only the perfect super-hero movie, but it's a perfect crime drama epic, oddly reminiscent of Goodfellas and The Godfather.
I give it 5 stars, because it truley deserves all 5 of them, and then some.
- Brodie Mann
Friday, July 18, 2008
My Perfect Day: In Movie Scenes
Brodie Fanns!
I was perusing other movie blogs, as I do from time to time. And one of my favourites is "Misfortune Cookie", really cool stuff over there. Last week, I was checking it out, and she wrote this cool post on constructing the perfect day, using scenes from movies. This link takes you to the actual post.
I rather enjoyed it, and I figured I'd take a crack at it.
- I'd most likely start the day off recovering from the night before with Russell Hammond of Stillwater in Almost Famous.
- Then I'd probably grab a cheeseburger from Big Kahuna Burger, the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast, like in Pulp Fiction.
- After breakfast, I'd probably want to pick up some new records. First I'd head to High Fidelity's Championship Vinyl, and try to trade barbs with Rob, Dick and Barry. Then I'd cruise over to Empire Records for "Rex Manning Day." Say no more, mon amour.
- For lunch, I'd have to do Chotchkie's, the favourite coffee spot for Office Space's Peter, Michael and Samir.
- I'd probably take a trip to the convention center, see if they've got a comic book convention going on, like in Chasing Amy.
- I of course can't make it through the day without taking in a Sonny Chiba flick or two, hook up with my good buddy Clarence Worely from True Romance.
- Dinner at American Psycho's Dorsia with some co-workers, but only if we have reservations.
- In the late evening I'd probably go bowling for a game or two with The Dude, Walt and Donny from The Big Lebowski. Of course, I'd make sure not to step over the line.
- I'd spend the rest of the night chillin' on the football field with the Robert E. Lee Class of '77 out of Dazed and Confused. When I first conceptualized this list, I thought about just making my entire day out of that movie, but that would be cheating.
I was perusing other movie blogs, as I do from time to time. And one of my favourites is "Misfortune Cookie", really cool stuff over there. Last week, I was checking it out, and she wrote this cool post on constructing the perfect day, using scenes from movies. This link takes you to the actual post.
I rather enjoyed it, and I figured I'd take a crack at it.
- I'd most likely start the day off recovering from the night before with Russell Hammond of Stillwater in Almost Famous.
- Then I'd probably grab a cheeseburger from Big Kahuna Burger, the cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast, like in Pulp Fiction.
- After breakfast, I'd probably want to pick up some new records. First I'd head to High Fidelity's Championship Vinyl, and try to trade barbs with Rob, Dick and Barry. Then I'd cruise over to Empire Records for "Rex Manning Day." Say no more, mon amour.
- For lunch, I'd have to do Chotchkie's, the favourite coffee spot for Office Space's Peter, Michael and Samir.
- I'd probably take a trip to the convention center, see if they've got a comic book convention going on, like in Chasing Amy.
- I of course can't make it through the day without taking in a Sonny Chiba flick or two, hook up with my good buddy Clarence Worely from True Romance.
- Dinner at American Psycho's Dorsia with some co-workers, but only if we have reservations.
- In the late evening I'd probably go bowling for a game or two with The Dude, Walt and Donny from The Big Lebowski. Of course, I'd make sure not to step over the line.
- I'd spend the rest of the night chillin' on the football field with the Robert E. Lee Class of '77 out of Dazed and Confused. When I first conceptualized this list, I thought about just making my entire day out of that movie, but that would be cheating.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Watchmen Trailer
Brodie Fanns!
The trailer for the cinematic adaptation for the single greatest graphic novel ever written is finally upon us. It will play before The Dark Knight. So I can't wait to see it on the big screen. But here is a damn fine quality video of it.
Get Geeky Brodie-Maniacs. It's Watchmen.
I'm also going to post the URL, just in case the video doesn't play.
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/trailer
- Brodie Mann
The trailer for the cinematic adaptation for the single greatest graphic novel ever written is finally upon us. It will play before The Dark Knight. So I can't wait to see it on the big screen. But here is a damn fine quality video of it.
Get Geeky Brodie-Maniacs. It's Watchmen.
I'm also going to post the URL, just in case the video doesn't play.
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/watchmen/trailer
- Brodie Mann
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
4.5 Stars
Hellboy II: The Golden Army is one of those niche films based on a niche comic book directed by a niche director. By all accounts, it shouldn't do well with mainstream audiences. But it's just too damn good to not do well. I think because director Guillermo del Toro is just too damn bizarre to resist.
Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) has his hands full in the newest installment. Not only is firey girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) demanding more out of the relationship, but an elvish prince is seeking to take world domination away from the humans. By using an unstoppable army. A golden army. Now Hellboy, Liz and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) must join forces with Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane) and the princes sister to prevent the centuries old truce between the two races from being broken.
Hellboy, the character, let's talk about him. Ron Pearlman brings a sarcastic, sardonic, anti-hero attitude to the big red beast, playing the character to perfection. He's a reluctant hero, but he's not as scornful towards the people he saves as they are to him. He understands that he has a job to do, and does it, despite the rejection from the public. And Pearlman exudes that. It's not too many people who would be able to play so well through piles of make-up, but Pearlman is the perfect match for the character.
As an actor, he's able to balance the character's conflicts. He never emphasizes one over the other, as they are all equally important to the story. His internal conflict with who he is and who he could be, his constant arguments with Liz about where their relationship is heading, and his duty to save humanity from the forces of the golden army.
Guillermo del Toro launches himself to the position of greatest modern fantasy director with this film, as if El Laberinto del Fauno didn't already cement that title for him. His ability to create a visual spectacle that leaves you amazed, breathless and hungry for more is unmatched, even against heavyweights Peter Jacksons, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. del Toro takes fantasy to the extreme, yet keeps it simple. He doesn't rely on the CG like the rest tend to.
The only complaint I really do have is that he tried to cram too much into the film. It's too busy, there's too much going on. He should have dialed it back, especially in the first act. It's such an overload of bizarre creatures, that you're hoping for rest, which you never get.
For a perfect mix of comedy, action and fantasy, it doesn't get any better than Hellboy.
4.5 Stars
Hellboy II: The Golden Army is one of those niche films based on a niche comic book directed by a niche director. By all accounts, it shouldn't do well with mainstream audiences. But it's just too damn good to not do well. I think because director Guillermo del Toro is just too damn bizarre to resist.
Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) has his hands full in the newest installment. Not only is firey girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) demanding more out of the relationship, but an elvish prince is seeking to take world domination away from the humans. By using an unstoppable army. A golden army. Now Hellboy, Liz and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) must join forces with Johann Krauss (Seth MacFarlane) and the princes sister to prevent the centuries old truce between the two races from being broken.
Hellboy, the character, let's talk about him. Ron Pearlman brings a sarcastic, sardonic, anti-hero attitude to the big red beast, playing the character to perfection. He's a reluctant hero, but he's not as scornful towards the people he saves as they are to him. He understands that he has a job to do, and does it, despite the rejection from the public. And Pearlman exudes that. It's not too many people who would be able to play so well through piles of make-up, but Pearlman is the perfect match for the character.
As an actor, he's able to balance the character's conflicts. He never emphasizes one over the other, as they are all equally important to the story. His internal conflict with who he is and who he could be, his constant arguments with Liz about where their relationship is heading, and his duty to save humanity from the forces of the golden army.
Guillermo del Toro launches himself to the position of greatest modern fantasy director with this film, as if El Laberinto del Fauno didn't already cement that title for him. His ability to create a visual spectacle that leaves you amazed, breathless and hungry for more is unmatched, even against heavyweights Peter Jacksons, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. del Toro takes fantasy to the extreme, yet keeps it simple. He doesn't rely on the CG like the rest tend to.
The only complaint I really do have is that he tried to cram too much into the film. It's too busy, there's too much going on. He should have dialed it back, especially in the first act. It's such an overload of bizarre creatures, that you're hoping for rest, which you never get.
For a perfect mix of comedy, action and fantasy, it doesn't get any better than Hellboy.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
WALL-E
WALL-E
5 Stars
I need to get a star graphic. Oh well. WALL-E is beyond good. It is beyond great. It is, without a doubt, the greatest Pixar film ever. But more than that, it is one of the finest animated films ever.
WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth class) is a simple robot, charged with the simple task of cleaning up earth 600 years after humans abandoned it following the global conglomorate Buy N Large's almost eco-decimation of the planet. There were other WALL-E units, but WALL-E is the only one who remains active, and he's developed a quirky personality. He lives alone on the planet, save for a pet cockroach, and the random interesting knick-knacks he finds. To bide his time, he watches an old VHS copy of Hello Dolly!, deciding what he's missing in his life is love. Enter searcher robot EVE, sent by the humans (who live on massive space stations) to find signs of life on Earth. It's the classic story of boy meets girl. Except boy and girl are robots. WALL-E falls in love with EVE, though she's more interested in accomplishing her primary directive, which she does when WALL-E gives her a plant he found (get it, like a flower, awwwww), and then she promptly shuts down, waiting for the transport ship to collect her and her findings. Thus starts and interstellar journey to bring the humans out of their sluggish and completely pampered lives aboard the space stations, but more importantly, one of the greatest love stories ever committed to screen. Involving robots.
I really don't know where to start with this. I haven't had pre-release anticipation for an animated film since 2004's The Incredibles (also Pixar). And I haven't truley been impressed by one since then.
What got me with this one was a bizarrely intriguing story, coupled with fantastic filmmaking. And that, I believe, is the magic of Pixar. Where other animated films try to do a mix of adult content and kid stuff, so there's "something the whole family can enjoy!", Pixar films take the adults, particularly the adults without young kids (like myself), back to when we were kids. It recaptures the magic we all felt when we saw Aladdin go on the magic carpet ride with Jasmine, when Belle and Beast danced in the main ballroom, when Robin outfoxed (pun intended) Prince John, when Pinocchio turned into an ass, when Dumbo flew for the first time and when Prince Charming kissed Snow White to bring her out of her deep slumber. It leaves out the slick pop-culture references and the dubious double entendres the older audiences would understand but the youngens won't.
But mostly, Pixar rewards its audience. And WALL-E is no different. There's payoff. You don't walk away wondering why you just sat through the movie. You walk away glad you were able to get to the theatre to see it.
Director Andrew Stanton (A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo) took a risk in creating what, for all intents and purposes, could be considered a silent film. A silent animated film. The first half hour is nothing but WALL-E, the cockroach, and ultimately EVE. Sure we get snippets of Fred Willard as the CEO of Buy N Large (live action no less) and a few clips of Hello Dolly!, but for the most part, it's a robot and his bug. There's a significant Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplin feel to the character. To do that sort of thing in a modern "kids" film, takes guts. And Mr. Stanton, you've got 'em.
There's some great political commentary in there, too. About the environment, about mass capitalism, about societal apathy. But all that is obvious to the viewer (except the younger ones, who probably define capitalism as "Washington, D.C."). The thrust of the film, and what is most engaging about the picture is the love story.
We're not looking at two human characters, or personified animals. These are two robots. It's a new kind of love story. And it's played perfectly between the two characters. Stanton kept it simple. He didn't try to overcomplicate it, or make it goofy. It was a love story, and he told it. They just happen to be robots.
But really, and this is the technical portion of the review, the film would have been no where without the fantastic artwork of the Pixar animators. There's a meticulous attention to detail that even in some of the better animated films you don't get. And nothing is without purpose. There's a reason everything that appears on screen, appears on screen. Be it foreshadowing, be it plot advancement, or be it just for laughs (like the Pizza Planet truck, or Hamm the Piggy Bank), it all serves a purpose. Nothing is thrown away.
It is my third 5 star review of the year... and it is the first ever animated film to hold the number one slot in my living list of "Best Film of the Year." And that means in the now 5 years that I've been keeping those lists, this is the first time. Seriously... go see it. You have to. I loved this film.
5 Stars
I need to get a star graphic. Oh well. WALL-E is beyond good. It is beyond great. It is, without a doubt, the greatest Pixar film ever. But more than that, it is one of the finest animated films ever.
WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth class) is a simple robot, charged with the simple task of cleaning up earth 600 years after humans abandoned it following the global conglomorate Buy N Large's almost eco-decimation of the planet. There were other WALL-E units, but WALL-E is the only one who remains active, and he's developed a quirky personality. He lives alone on the planet, save for a pet cockroach, and the random interesting knick-knacks he finds. To bide his time, he watches an old VHS copy of Hello Dolly!, deciding what he's missing in his life is love. Enter searcher robot EVE, sent by the humans (who live on massive space stations) to find signs of life on Earth. It's the classic story of boy meets girl. Except boy and girl are robots. WALL-E falls in love with EVE, though she's more interested in accomplishing her primary directive, which she does when WALL-E gives her a plant he found (get it, like a flower, awwwww), and then she promptly shuts down, waiting for the transport ship to collect her and her findings. Thus starts and interstellar journey to bring the humans out of their sluggish and completely pampered lives aboard the space stations, but more importantly, one of the greatest love stories ever committed to screen. Involving robots.
I really don't know where to start with this. I haven't had pre-release anticipation for an animated film since 2004's The Incredibles (also Pixar). And I haven't truley been impressed by one since then.
What got me with this one was a bizarrely intriguing story, coupled with fantastic filmmaking. And that, I believe, is the magic of Pixar. Where other animated films try to do a mix of adult content and kid stuff, so there's "something the whole family can enjoy!", Pixar films take the adults, particularly the adults without young kids (like myself), back to when we were kids. It recaptures the magic we all felt when we saw Aladdin go on the magic carpet ride with Jasmine, when Belle and Beast danced in the main ballroom, when Robin outfoxed (pun intended) Prince John, when Pinocchio turned into an ass, when Dumbo flew for the first time and when Prince Charming kissed Snow White to bring her out of her deep slumber. It leaves out the slick pop-culture references and the dubious double entendres the older audiences would understand but the youngens won't.
But mostly, Pixar rewards its audience. And WALL-E is no different. There's payoff. You don't walk away wondering why you just sat through the movie. You walk away glad you were able to get to the theatre to see it.
Director Andrew Stanton (A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo) took a risk in creating what, for all intents and purposes, could be considered a silent film. A silent animated film. The first half hour is nothing but WALL-E, the cockroach, and ultimately EVE. Sure we get snippets of Fred Willard as the CEO of Buy N Large (live action no less) and a few clips of Hello Dolly!, but for the most part, it's a robot and his bug. There's a significant Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplin feel to the character. To do that sort of thing in a modern "kids" film, takes guts. And Mr. Stanton, you've got 'em.
There's some great political commentary in there, too. About the environment, about mass capitalism, about societal apathy. But all that is obvious to the viewer (except the younger ones, who probably define capitalism as "Washington, D.C."). The thrust of the film, and what is most engaging about the picture is the love story.
We're not looking at two human characters, or personified animals. These are two robots. It's a new kind of love story. And it's played perfectly between the two characters. Stanton kept it simple. He didn't try to overcomplicate it, or make it goofy. It was a love story, and he told it. They just happen to be robots.
But really, and this is the technical portion of the review, the film would have been no where without the fantastic artwork of the Pixar animators. There's a meticulous attention to detail that even in some of the better animated films you don't get. And nothing is without purpose. There's a reason everything that appears on screen, appears on screen. Be it foreshadowing, be it plot advancement, or be it just for laughs (like the Pizza Planet truck, or Hamm the Piggy Bank), it all serves a purpose. Nothing is thrown away.
It is my third 5 star review of the year... and it is the first ever animated film to hold the number one slot in my living list of "Best Film of the Year." And that means in the now 5 years that I've been keeping those lists, this is the first time. Seriously... go see it. You have to. I loved this film.
Wanted
Wanted
4 Stars
Action movies, let's talk about 'em. They got goofy and campy in the 80's... then Die Hard came along and redefined the genre. Then every action movie after that tried to be Die Hard. Then in 1999, The Matrix redefined the genre all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Which brings us to 2008. I'm not saying Wanted has redefined or revolutionized the action genre. But it's definitely changed the rules, and has done something pretty damn good.
Scottish star James McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a 20-something nobody working not-so-comfortably as low-rung management at an accounting firm. Barely content that his life means nothing and will go no where, his world almost literally explodes when he is drafted into The Fraternity by Angelina Jolie's Fox. The Fraternity, a secret society of assassins headed by Morgan Freeman's Sloan, wants Wesley to pick up where his father left off before his untimely murder by a defected member of The Fraternity. Why are these assassins so special? Why is Wesley so special? They have heightened senses, which allow them to react to a situation better than a normal person. With his training complete, Wesley must now face an ultimate, life changing conundrum: go after the man who killed his father, or listen to him when he reveals the alterior and sinister motives behind Sloan's bidding.
While it certainly doesn't break any new ground with the plot (lonely guy working in a dead end cubicle job is informed that he's special in many ways and must now use a plethora of guns and some kick ass action sequences to stop the bad guys... aforementioned Matrix say what?) What it does do, is shatter the traditional notions of good guy vs. bad guy in the action genre. Primarily through Wesley. Why is becoming this super-assassin? Is it for the thrill he gets off of his new found talents? Is it to avenge his father's death? Is it because it is what he is told his destiny is, and he's blindly following it? There's a philosophical discussion in the making here, and it's something that hasn't really been explored since The Matrix.
Similar traits have been explored in the plethora of super-hero movies that have been released over the past nine years, but those were traits that were engrained in popular characters long before they were put to the silver screen. While I admitedly have not read the comics this film was based on, there's a bit more legitimacy to it than there is when the guy is donning red and blue spandex. The Wesley character is more tangible because we know who he is, we can see him. He's not wearing a mask, metaphor intended.
McAvoy (Atonement, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) deserves a lot of that credit. That role could have been played a myriad of ways, but he plays it right. The transformation of frustrated meek to frustrated strong. It doesn't seem like a stretch for him or the character, and it's certainly not as offensive to the audience as the three hour long GAP ad that was Spider-Man 3. There's a natural flow to his progression as a character, and I don't mind the obligatory sequel set-up at the end.
What I liked most about Freeman (oh come on, if you don't know who Morgan Freeman is, you have no business reading my blog), is that not only is the character a sharp contrast of his usual character-type, but it's a particular opposition to the character we'll be seeing in two weeks with the release of The Dark Knight. He's stepping out of character, which is good. Not to say he's the villain, far from it. But there's more depth, I suppose, to his leader role. There's doubt. There's mystery. There's skepticism. You never quite take your eye off of him. The fact that it's Morgan Freeman doesn't lull you into a false sense of security. To the credit of Freeman, he doesn't let his personality take over the role.
And then there's Jolie. Damn is she hot. I mean, yeah, good actress, miles of talent on that one. But DAMN! Enough of me being a guy... She's a good actress, done some really great work. While you could tell she had fun with this role, there always seemed to be a slight hint of boredom on her face. Could have been a character trait for Fox. But I couldn't tell.
I have to give props to director Timur Bekmambetov (if you know who this guy is, then you get a free pass to my blog for life). I was unsure of how he would make the move to doing a mainstream American film. He gained some notice State-side a few years back for his decidedly Russian Night Watch franchise. But I wasn't overly impressed. They were alright, but nothing to write home about. That's always kind of a shakey deal, when someone from a vastly different cinematic community (particularly one as diverse, storied and different like the Eastern European/Western Asian community) tries to break it elsewhere. Very few Bollywood and East Asian directors have been able to do it (face it, Ang Lee's American stuff sucks, as does John Woo's). But having seen Night Watch, I can tell that he didn't compromise his voice to the studio, and that's something you have to respect in a director helming such a high profile, tent-pole of a film. Thumbs up, Timur. I don't know what that means in Kazakhstan, if it's a good thing, or if I just insulted your mother or whatever. But here... means good stuff. Keep your eye on this kid.
So Wanted unfortunately doesn't break new ground in the genre, but it definitely stirs the pot a bit. And that's what you've gotta do every so often... stir the pot. And it was thouroughly enjoyable.
4 Stars
Action movies, let's talk about 'em. They got goofy and campy in the 80's... then Die Hard came along and redefined the genre. Then every action movie after that tried to be Die Hard. Then in 1999, The Matrix redefined the genre all over again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Which brings us to 2008. I'm not saying Wanted has redefined or revolutionized the action genre. But it's definitely changed the rules, and has done something pretty damn good.
Scottish star James McAvoy stars as Wesley Gibson, a 20-something nobody working not-so-comfortably as low-rung management at an accounting firm. Barely content that his life means nothing and will go no where, his world almost literally explodes when he is drafted into The Fraternity by Angelina Jolie's Fox. The Fraternity, a secret society of assassins headed by Morgan Freeman's Sloan, wants Wesley to pick up where his father left off before his untimely murder by a defected member of The Fraternity. Why are these assassins so special? Why is Wesley so special? They have heightened senses, which allow them to react to a situation better than a normal person. With his training complete, Wesley must now face an ultimate, life changing conundrum: go after the man who killed his father, or listen to him when he reveals the alterior and sinister motives behind Sloan's bidding.
While it certainly doesn't break any new ground with the plot (lonely guy working in a dead end cubicle job is informed that he's special in many ways and must now use a plethora of guns and some kick ass action sequences to stop the bad guys... aforementioned Matrix say what?) What it does do, is shatter the traditional notions of good guy vs. bad guy in the action genre. Primarily through Wesley. Why is becoming this super-assassin? Is it for the thrill he gets off of his new found talents? Is it to avenge his father's death? Is it because it is what he is told his destiny is, and he's blindly following it? There's a philosophical discussion in the making here, and it's something that hasn't really been explored since The Matrix.
Similar traits have been explored in the plethora of super-hero movies that have been released over the past nine years, but those were traits that were engrained in popular characters long before they were put to the silver screen. While I admitedly have not read the comics this film was based on, there's a bit more legitimacy to it than there is when the guy is donning red and blue spandex. The Wesley character is more tangible because we know who he is, we can see him. He's not wearing a mask, metaphor intended.
McAvoy (Atonement, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) deserves a lot of that credit. That role could have been played a myriad of ways, but he plays it right. The transformation of frustrated meek to frustrated strong. It doesn't seem like a stretch for him or the character, and it's certainly not as offensive to the audience as the three hour long GAP ad that was Spider-Man 3. There's a natural flow to his progression as a character, and I don't mind the obligatory sequel set-up at the end.
What I liked most about Freeman (oh come on, if you don't know who Morgan Freeman is, you have no business reading my blog), is that not only is the character a sharp contrast of his usual character-type, but it's a particular opposition to the character we'll be seeing in two weeks with the release of The Dark Knight. He's stepping out of character, which is good. Not to say he's the villain, far from it. But there's more depth, I suppose, to his leader role. There's doubt. There's mystery. There's skepticism. You never quite take your eye off of him. The fact that it's Morgan Freeman doesn't lull you into a false sense of security. To the credit of Freeman, he doesn't let his personality take over the role.
And then there's Jolie. Damn is she hot. I mean, yeah, good actress, miles of talent on that one. But DAMN! Enough of me being a guy... She's a good actress, done some really great work. While you could tell she had fun with this role, there always seemed to be a slight hint of boredom on her face. Could have been a character trait for Fox. But I couldn't tell.
I have to give props to director Timur Bekmambetov (if you know who this guy is, then you get a free pass to my blog for life). I was unsure of how he would make the move to doing a mainstream American film. He gained some notice State-side a few years back for his decidedly Russian Night Watch franchise. But I wasn't overly impressed. They were alright, but nothing to write home about. That's always kind of a shakey deal, when someone from a vastly different cinematic community (particularly one as diverse, storied and different like the Eastern European/Western Asian community) tries to break it elsewhere. Very few Bollywood and East Asian directors have been able to do it (face it, Ang Lee's American stuff sucks, as does John Woo's). But having seen Night Watch, I can tell that he didn't compromise his voice to the studio, and that's something you have to respect in a director helming such a high profile, tent-pole of a film. Thumbs up, Timur. I don't know what that means in Kazakhstan, if it's a good thing, or if I just insulted your mother or whatever. But here... means good stuff. Keep your eye on this kid.
So Wanted unfortunately doesn't break new ground in the genre, but it definitely stirs the pot a bit. And that's what you've gotta do every so often... stir the pot. And it was thouroughly enjoyable.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Get Smart
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.
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.
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
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
3 stars
That right there, giving it 3 stars, pains me. I really wanted to like this more. But because George Lucas was involved, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull went from a moderately enjoyable to completely ridiculous faster than Dr. Jones can piss off the Nazi party.
It's been about 20 years since we last saw Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford), and that's how much time has passed in his little movie-verse. The year is 1957, right in the middle of the Cold War, and the KGB, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blancett) has enlisted the help of Indiana to track down the famed and elusive Crystal Skull of Akator, with ties to a lost city of gold in Peru. Don't worry, Indy hasn't gone Red. He's an unwilling participant, the KGB is using him for his knowledge of ancient artifacts. After he narrowly escapes a nuclear blast test (thank you 1957 home appliance construction), Indy returns to his day job: college professor, only to find out a former colleague, Dr. Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured by the KGB, and Ox's protege, Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf) has come to Dr. Jones for assistance in tracking down Ox. Which leads them to Peru and the search for the Crystal Skull.
I can't really get into more without revealing key plot details, but that's the long and short of it. And it's a really great premise.
Indiana Jones 4 succeeded where several reboots and sequels have failed. It didn't fall into the trap of "Hey, remember this from the original? It was funny then, so we're gonna do it 20 times in the new one." *cough*Pirates 2*cough* It alluded to the original trilogy, in so much as it provided good bridging stories for several favourite characters, including Dr. Jones, Sr. and Marcus Brody. And there certain logical references, including a flash of the Ark of the Covenant in a secret hanger. But it never strayed into the territory of *nudge nudge wink wink*.
The problem is that it is 20 years on. Harrison Ford is showing his age. The franchise is showing its age. The 80's were a different cinematic landscape than the 00's (I believe the preferred nomenclature is the Odds, or something like that). And I appreciate the throwback to both the original franchise specifically, and to the old serial genre in general.
In the 80's, the films were centered the mythos surrounding the Judeo-Christian faith, and they took several liberties with it in the name of entertainment. And let me state that that was always the intended purpose of the films: to entertain. And they all, including this new one, succeeded fantastically at entertaining. But in 2008, the social climate concerning religious dogma, particularly concerning the Judeo-Christian faith, has become more of a taboo than it was 20-30 years ago. And I think that hindered the development process of the Indy 4. They had to take on a new artifact from a different era and a different culture. Maybe that strayed a bit too far out of my Indiana Jones comfort zone.
But since they went with the ancient Mayans, let's focus on that. Really entertaining, and I stuck with it even through Mutt Williams swinging on vines like Tarzan. But where it jumped the shark into complete ridiculousness was the end, when it switched from Spielberg to Lucas real fast. I sat in the theatre thinking "What the hell?" Only I used a slightly stronger word in place of hell. I still can't grasp my head around the ending. Oh, I understood it. I just can't believe that they did it, because it's so phenomenally stupid. And the thing of it is, is that it's not entirely stupid. Just one aspect. Had they ended the sequence a few minutes sooner, it would have been semi-OK. But no, they went for it, and it's just a severe letdown.
Ford slips back into Indiana Jones like an old baseball mitt. He's dusting it off, finding his comfort zone, all the little spots that made the character his own. But there are definite signs of aging. Fortunately he doesn't come across as an old guy trying to recapture his youth. He plays the character as too old for the action, but he does it anyway, and he does it brilliantly.
I can't finish this review without talking about Cate Blanchett. There are so few great villainous roles written for women, and she's the perfect actress to take it on. She's the finest of our time, and throws in the right amount of villainy, naivety and curiosity.
I spoke earlier of the throwbacks to the original trilogy, and perhaps the biggest and best was saved for the third act. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood. It brings the story full circle, rather than being a cheap attempt to bridge the films.
If you liked the original trilogy, you'll be entertained by Crystal Skull. But don't expect it to be the greatest Indy film, because it isn't. As much as that pains me to write.
- Brodie Mann
3 stars
That right there, giving it 3 stars, pains me. I really wanted to like this more. But because George Lucas was involved, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull went from a moderately enjoyable to completely ridiculous faster than Dr. Jones can piss off the Nazi party.
It's been about 20 years since we last saw Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford), and that's how much time has passed in his little movie-verse. The year is 1957, right in the middle of the Cold War, and the KGB, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blancett) has enlisted the help of Indiana to track down the famed and elusive Crystal Skull of Akator, with ties to a lost city of gold in Peru. Don't worry, Indy hasn't gone Red. He's an unwilling participant, the KGB is using him for his knowledge of ancient artifacts. After he narrowly escapes a nuclear blast test (thank you 1957 home appliance construction), Indy returns to his day job: college professor, only to find out a former colleague, Dr. Oxley (John Hurt) has been captured by the KGB, and Ox's protege, Mutt Williams (Shia Labeouf) has come to Dr. Jones for assistance in tracking down Ox. Which leads them to Peru and the search for the Crystal Skull.
I can't really get into more without revealing key plot details, but that's the long and short of it. And it's a really great premise.
Indiana Jones 4 succeeded where several reboots and sequels have failed. It didn't fall into the trap of "Hey, remember this from the original? It was funny then, so we're gonna do it 20 times in the new one." *cough*Pirates 2*cough* It alluded to the original trilogy, in so much as it provided good bridging stories for several favourite characters, including Dr. Jones, Sr. and Marcus Brody. And there certain logical references, including a flash of the Ark of the Covenant in a secret hanger. But it never strayed into the territory of *nudge nudge wink wink*.
The problem is that it is 20 years on. Harrison Ford is showing his age. The franchise is showing its age. The 80's were a different cinematic landscape than the 00's (I believe the preferred nomenclature is the Odds, or something like that). And I appreciate the throwback to both the original franchise specifically, and to the old serial genre in general.
In the 80's, the films were centered the mythos surrounding the Judeo-Christian faith, and they took several liberties with it in the name of entertainment. And let me state that that was always the intended purpose of the films: to entertain. And they all, including this new one, succeeded fantastically at entertaining. But in 2008, the social climate concerning religious dogma, particularly concerning the Judeo-Christian faith, has become more of a taboo than it was 20-30 years ago. And I think that hindered the development process of the Indy 4. They had to take on a new artifact from a different era and a different culture. Maybe that strayed a bit too far out of my Indiana Jones comfort zone.
But since they went with the ancient Mayans, let's focus on that. Really entertaining, and I stuck with it even through Mutt Williams swinging on vines like Tarzan. But where it jumped the shark into complete ridiculousness was the end, when it switched from Spielberg to Lucas real fast. I sat in the theatre thinking "What the hell?" Only I used a slightly stronger word in place of hell. I still can't grasp my head around the ending. Oh, I understood it. I just can't believe that they did it, because it's so phenomenally stupid. And the thing of it is, is that it's not entirely stupid. Just one aspect. Had they ended the sequence a few minutes sooner, it would have been semi-OK. But no, they went for it, and it's just a severe letdown.
Ford slips back into Indiana Jones like an old baseball mitt. He's dusting it off, finding his comfort zone, all the little spots that made the character his own. But there are definite signs of aging. Fortunately he doesn't come across as an old guy trying to recapture his youth. He plays the character as too old for the action, but he does it anyway, and he does it brilliantly.
I can't finish this review without talking about Cate Blanchett. There are so few great villainous roles written for women, and she's the perfect actress to take it on. She's the finest of our time, and throws in the right amount of villainy, naivety and curiosity.
I spoke earlier of the throwbacks to the original trilogy, and perhaps the biggest and best was saved for the third act. Karen Allen returns as Marion Ravenwood. It brings the story full circle, rather than being a cheap attempt to bridge the films.
If you liked the original trilogy, you'll be entertained by Crystal Skull. But don't expect it to be the greatest Indy film, because it isn't. As much as that pains me to write.
- Brodie Mann
Friday, May 23, 2008
Seven Instances of Real Life Proving Movies Right
In most case scenarios, real life tends to prove the movies wrong. From sound/explosions in space, to lit cigarettes igniting a gas spill. But what about when movies are correct? Here's a list of movies proven correct by the real world.
7) Brad Pitt + Angelina Jolie = Sexiest couple in the history of the world
We all know that Angelina Jolie is the sexiest woman EVAR! And Brad Pitt is the sexiest man EVAR! Putting them together in a movie is one thing. That's just good marketing. Which is why Mr. and Mrs. Smith was such a success. Oh yeah, they're also damn fine actors. But those two shacking after making the movie up is an explosion of sexiness that this world was not entirely ready for. And their kids? Holy crap. They're gonna be so good looking, that to look upon them will induce face-melting the likes we haven't seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just watch this scene. Even when they're kicking each others asses it's hot. And it gives way to a wicked hot sex scene. It's a tame sex scene, but still hot.
6) J. Dawson was a real dude. Told rich chicks he was an artist so he could see them nekkid.
There were many surprises to come out of the film Titanic. Did you know that the ship was real? And really did hit an iceberg? News to me. But more so, there was a real J. Dawson who died on the real Titanic. Still no word on whether he did the nasty in the steamed up backseat of a Renault.
5) Distilled Urine- Nutritious! Delicious! Full of Electro-lytes
One of the coolest scenes of Waterworld was when Kevin Costner urinates in a jar, distills it, then drinks it. But we here in the real world would never have to do that, that's why it's funny when Costner does it. And technically that's still true. Except for NASA astronauts. In an effort to reduce costs of hauling water into space, NASA is exploring technology to distill urine. (click for full article). Costner: Trailblazer in Piss drinkin'!
4) Nazi's are bad
Time really told on this one, and it could have been devastating to the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark had it gone the other way. But luckily for Spielberg and crew... Nazis were dicks.
3) Scott Peterson in Chryo-stasis
We all remember that overlooked gem of an action flick known as Demolition Man. Simon Phoenix, the baddest mother f***er in 1993 gets frozen in a chryo-prison, in hopes for reanimated rehab sometime in the future. So does the cop who caught him, Mr. John Spartan. In 2030, he's unleashed on the Utopian society known as San Angeles. After going on a murder/death/kill spree, Phoenix decides to unleash the baddest of the bad also in Chryo-prison. You have to overlook the fact that he sets Jeffrey Dahmer free, even though he died a year after the flick was released. Because if you look on the screen with the list of criminals he's setting free, we see Scott Peterson. Now, in 1993, it was impossible to know that 10 years later Scott Peterson would kill his wife Laci and their unborn baby, but he did. Proving Sylvester Stallone right.
2) Bob Fosse is a psychic- predicts own death 8 years prior to following through with it.
Bob Fosse, one of the hardest working guys in show biz back in his time, directed big budget, Academy award winning/nominated Hollywood movies. But that was his side job. His real job was directing/producing/choreographing/costuming/designing/starring in/ushering big budget Broadway musicals. And after all that... he still found time to pop pills, smoke like a fish, drink like a chimney and have more sex in one night than Paris Hilton has before breakfast. So in 1979, he felt it was necessary to write/direct/produce his own semi-autobiographical film, All That Jazz with Roy Scheider playing the role of Joe Gideon (Fosse). SPOILER ALERT! Gideon dies of a heart attack from all that work, pills, booze, sex and cigarettes. 8 years later, Fosse kicks the bucket, also because of work, pills, booze, sex and cigarettes. Creepy. How'd you like that... to predict your own damn death.
1) San Dimas High School Football does, in fact, rule!
As you may recall, the primary focus of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was the fact that they had to give a history report, which is why they were traveling through time in the first place. Well, the last half of the flick is cut with scenes of other students giving their oral reports. One of the students was a football player. He was struggling. So gain the favour of the crowd, he calls out "San Dimas High School Football RULES!!" Are we supposed to take his word for it? Up until last year, yes. But then this happened. Undeniable proof that San Dimas High School football is the best ever!
7) Brad Pitt + Angelina Jolie = Sexiest couple in the history of the world
We all know that Angelina Jolie is the sexiest woman EVAR! And Brad Pitt is the sexiest man EVAR! Putting them together in a movie is one thing. That's just good marketing. Which is why Mr. and Mrs. Smith was such a success. Oh yeah, they're also damn fine actors. But those two shacking after making the movie up is an explosion of sexiness that this world was not entirely ready for. And their kids? Holy crap. They're gonna be so good looking, that to look upon them will induce face-melting the likes we haven't seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Just watch this scene. Even when they're kicking each others asses it's hot. And it gives way to a wicked hot sex scene. It's a tame sex scene, but still hot.
6) J. Dawson was a real dude. Told rich chicks he was an artist so he could see them nekkid.
There were many surprises to come out of the film Titanic. Did you know that the ship was real? And really did hit an iceberg? News to me. But more so, there was a real J. Dawson who died on the real Titanic. Still no word on whether he did the nasty in the steamed up backseat of a Renault.
5) Distilled Urine- Nutritious! Delicious! Full of Electro-lytes
One of the coolest scenes of Waterworld was when Kevin Costner urinates in a jar, distills it, then drinks it. But we here in the real world would never have to do that, that's why it's funny when Costner does it. And technically that's still true. Except for NASA astronauts. In an effort to reduce costs of hauling water into space, NASA is exploring technology to distill urine. (click for full article). Costner: Trailblazer in Piss drinkin'!
4) Nazi's are bad
Time really told on this one, and it could have been devastating to the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark had it gone the other way. But luckily for Spielberg and crew... Nazis were dicks.
3) Scott Peterson in Chryo-stasis
We all remember that overlooked gem of an action flick known as Demolition Man. Simon Phoenix, the baddest mother f***er in 1993 gets frozen in a chryo-prison, in hopes for reanimated rehab sometime in the future. So does the cop who caught him, Mr. John Spartan. In 2030, he's unleashed on the Utopian society known as San Angeles. After going on a murder/death/kill spree, Phoenix decides to unleash the baddest of the bad also in Chryo-prison. You have to overlook the fact that he sets Jeffrey Dahmer free, even though he died a year after the flick was released. Because if you look on the screen with the list of criminals he's setting free, we see Scott Peterson. Now, in 1993, it was impossible to know that 10 years later Scott Peterson would kill his wife Laci and their unborn baby, but he did. Proving Sylvester Stallone right.
2) Bob Fosse is a psychic- predicts own death 8 years prior to following through with it.
Bob Fosse, one of the hardest working guys in show biz back in his time, directed big budget, Academy award winning/nominated Hollywood movies. But that was his side job. His real job was directing/producing/choreographing/costuming/designing/starring in/ushering big budget Broadway musicals. And after all that... he still found time to pop pills, smoke like a fish, drink like a chimney and have more sex in one night than Paris Hilton has before breakfast. So in 1979, he felt it was necessary to write/direct/produce his own semi-autobiographical film, All That Jazz with Roy Scheider playing the role of Joe Gideon (Fosse). SPOILER ALERT! Gideon dies of a heart attack from all that work, pills, booze, sex and cigarettes. 8 years later, Fosse kicks the bucket, also because of work, pills, booze, sex and cigarettes. Creepy. How'd you like that... to predict your own damn death.
1) San Dimas High School Football does, in fact, rule!
As you may recall, the primary focus of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was the fact that they had to give a history report, which is why they were traveling through time in the first place. Well, the last half of the flick is cut with scenes of other students giving their oral reports. One of the students was a football player. He was struggling. So gain the favour of the crowd, he calls out "San Dimas High School Football RULES!!" Are we supposed to take his word for it? Up until last year, yes. But then this happened. Undeniable proof that San Dimas High School football is the best ever!
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Chronic-WHAT-cles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
4.5 Stars
You know, Peter Jackson, god bless him, but he set the bar so impossibly high for epic fantasy film making. Damn your rings and the lords of them. However... directer Andrew Adamson continues to come within striking distance of said bar with his thus-far very impressive and equally epic Chronicles of Narnia series, continuing this past week with part 2, Prince Caspian.
So, the Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy (William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes and Georgie Henley, respectively), when we left them at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, they had vanquished the White Witch, brought peace to Narnia, and grown up to be legendary Kings and Queens. Then they get transported back to the real world, where literally no time has passed, and they are back to being kids. In the second installment, it's a year later for them, yet 1300 years have passed in Narnia. And they return after Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) calls for them on Susan's mystical horn. Caspian is the rightful heir to the throne, but in a move reminiscent of the Bard, his uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) made a deadly move for the throne by killing Caspian's father. Miraz is a tyrant, all the Narnians are now thought to be extinct, yet they're just living in hiding. So Caspian, along with the Pevensies, must bring peace, order and balance back to Narnia.
As previously stated, the bar for epic fantasy is so, well, epically high, that it seems almost unattainable. And it's hard to compare The Chronicles of Narnia to Lord of the Rings, because they are so different thematically, in tone, in presentation, in style and in it's target demographic. The target audience for LotR is people who perpetually live in a fantasy land, while living in their parents' house, having never had sex, while the target audience for Narnia is children.
But there is still that similar genre, so comparisons must be made. The reason the Narnia films have done, and will continue to do, so well where others like Eragorn and Golden Compass and even Bridge to Terabithia have failed is that it seems to refuse to placate to the childhood nostalgia aspect. The others have played it safe by staying safely within the realm of "kids movie," never having to invest a lot in grabbing older audiences. But Narnia is going all out in it's movie making. While it is significantly toned down, when compared to LotR, it doesn't feel like a "kids movie." And it is the one series, I feel, that can truly be enjoyed on every level by kids, parents, and even grandparents.
Adamson presents the film, and the story, for that matter, as is. He doesn't "dumb it down" for the kids, and he doesn't get too convoluted with the storytelling. He respects the source material, C.S. Lewis, and the audience, and that's the strongest thing this film has going for it. And despite the PG rating, the battle scenes are really intense. Very well done.
I always take time to discuss the actors, because they need to respect the material just as much as the director or writer does. Adamson gets some absolutely fantastic performances from the young actors, who descend in age at 21, 19, 16 and 12 (Moseley, Popplewell, Keynes and Henley). Their grasp of the characters they play, the importance of the script, their handling of the script, and the subsequent gravitas they bring to the characters shows talent that some actors more than twice their age struggle to exhibit. With the third installment, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader already in pre-production (set for a 2010 release), I'm gonna miss Moseley and Popplewell. Peter and Susan are not in that book (not for long anyway), so they won't really be in the flick. And they'll be missed. By me anyway.
Definitely hit the theatres for this one.
4.5 Stars
You know, Peter Jackson, god bless him, but he set the bar so impossibly high for epic fantasy film making. Damn your rings and the lords of them. However... directer Andrew Adamson continues to come within striking distance of said bar with his thus-far very impressive and equally epic Chronicles of Narnia series, continuing this past week with part 2, Prince Caspian.
So, the Pevensie children, Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy (William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes and Georgie Henley, respectively), when we left them at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, they had vanquished the White Witch, brought peace to Narnia, and grown up to be legendary Kings and Queens. Then they get transported back to the real world, where literally no time has passed, and they are back to being kids. In the second installment, it's a year later for them, yet 1300 years have passed in Narnia. And they return after Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) calls for them on Susan's mystical horn. Caspian is the rightful heir to the throne, but in a move reminiscent of the Bard, his uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) made a deadly move for the throne by killing Caspian's father. Miraz is a tyrant, all the Narnians are now thought to be extinct, yet they're just living in hiding. So Caspian, along with the Pevensies, must bring peace, order and balance back to Narnia.
As previously stated, the bar for epic fantasy is so, well, epically high, that it seems almost unattainable. And it's hard to compare The Chronicles of Narnia to Lord of the Rings, because they are so different thematically, in tone, in presentation, in style and in it's target demographic. The target audience for LotR is people who perpetually live in a fantasy land, while living in their parents' house, having never had sex, while the target audience for Narnia is children.
But there is still that similar genre, so comparisons must be made. The reason the Narnia films have done, and will continue to do, so well where others like Eragorn and Golden Compass and even Bridge to Terabithia have failed is that it seems to refuse to placate to the childhood nostalgia aspect. The others have played it safe by staying safely within the realm of "kids movie," never having to invest a lot in grabbing older audiences. But Narnia is going all out in it's movie making. While it is significantly toned down, when compared to LotR, it doesn't feel like a "kids movie." And it is the one series, I feel, that can truly be enjoyed on every level by kids, parents, and even grandparents.
Adamson presents the film, and the story, for that matter, as is. He doesn't "dumb it down" for the kids, and he doesn't get too convoluted with the storytelling. He respects the source material, C.S. Lewis, and the audience, and that's the strongest thing this film has going for it. And despite the PG rating, the battle scenes are really intense. Very well done.
I always take time to discuss the actors, because they need to respect the material just as much as the director or writer does. Adamson gets some absolutely fantastic performances from the young actors, who descend in age at 21, 19, 16 and 12 (Moseley, Popplewell, Keynes and Henley). Their grasp of the characters they play, the importance of the script, their handling of the script, and the subsequent gravitas they bring to the characters shows talent that some actors more than twice their age struggle to exhibit. With the third installment, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader already in pre-production (set for a 2010 release), I'm gonna miss Moseley and Popplewell. Peter and Susan are not in that book (not for long anyway), so they won't really be in the flick. And they'll be missed. By me anyway.
Definitely hit the theatres for this one.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Speed Racer
Speed Racer
3 Stars
I've often pondered if a movie can scrape by on sheer entertainment factor alone. Speed Racer answers yes, but barely.
Based on the 60's anime series (check out the first season on Hulu), Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is the kid brother of racing legend Rex Racer, who walked out on the family business and met an untimely death in a cross country rally race. Ten years later, Speed is the next big thing in racing, and he must now compete to save his family's independent auto company, and to bring honour back to the sport of racing. In order to do so he must compete in the same race that killed his brother, there-by qualifying for the Grand-Prix. He's able to do so with the help of his father Pops (John Goodman), girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci), mechanics Sparky and Spritle (Kick Gurry and Paulie Litt) and the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox).
I defended this flick for a long time because I figured it would come up against the same kind of nay-sayers that 300 hit last year. They just wouldn't understand the filmmaker's vision and direction. What Andy and Larry Wachowski were going for is a bizarre amalgamation of live action and anime. And fortunately for the film, they accomplish it. It's a high energy, very kinetic, very fantastical film. I was dazzled by the sheer ballsiness of it. And it did entertain me for the entirely too long 135 minute run time.
But it came apart in the writing. That's where it got it's length. Too often the story plodded along toward the action. That could be the problem with translating anime to a feature film. Anime is known for taking forever to go somewhere (and why it got so popular with the ADD afflicted youth of America, I'll never understand). And it's sort of an irony of hypocrisies that the film called Speed Racer moves at a snails pace. But the Wachowski's never seemed to figure out that this wasn't a high concept action flick like The Matrix. It was a film based on an anime about a guy who races a really cool car to fight corporate corruption and avenge his brother's death. Stick to the racing guys.
But the remarkably talented cast did their damnedest to work with the little they were given. Hirsch (Alpha Dog, Into the Wild) has set himself up as one of the most promising young actors in the game, and even with the kitchy dialog and drawn out non-racing scenes, you get this sense that he really is trying to do both his talent and the material justice. If only the Wachowski's had done the same.
Ricci (Black Snake Moan) is pitch perfect as Trixie. As is Goodman (The Big Lebowski) as Pops. The two seemed to have a deeper understanding of the characters, that went beyond what was handed to them at rehearsals. Granted, Pops and Trixie aren't the most complex characters in the world, but they certainly are fun, and iconic in their own way. They knew it was important to get the characters right, and they did. Kudos to them.
I would have to say that kids and those with only a passing interest in the original Speed Racer would enjoy this (especially kids), as the more hard core fans will only leave the theatre disappointed and feeling nothing but resentment and disdain for the brothers Wachowski.
- Brodie Mann
3 Stars
I've often pondered if a movie can scrape by on sheer entertainment factor alone. Speed Racer answers yes, but barely.
Based on the 60's anime series (check out the first season on Hulu), Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is the kid brother of racing legend Rex Racer, who walked out on the family business and met an untimely death in a cross country rally race. Ten years later, Speed is the next big thing in racing, and he must now compete to save his family's independent auto company, and to bring honour back to the sport of racing. In order to do so he must compete in the same race that killed his brother, there-by qualifying for the Grand-Prix. He's able to do so with the help of his father Pops (John Goodman), girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci), mechanics Sparky and Spritle (Kick Gurry and Paulie Litt) and the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox).
I defended this flick for a long time because I figured it would come up against the same kind of nay-sayers that 300 hit last year. They just wouldn't understand the filmmaker's vision and direction. What Andy and Larry Wachowski were going for is a bizarre amalgamation of live action and anime. And fortunately for the film, they accomplish it. It's a high energy, very kinetic, very fantastical film. I was dazzled by the sheer ballsiness of it. And it did entertain me for the entirely too long 135 minute run time.
But it came apart in the writing. That's where it got it's length. Too often the story plodded along toward the action. That could be the problem with translating anime to a feature film. Anime is known for taking forever to go somewhere (and why it got so popular with the ADD afflicted youth of America, I'll never understand). And it's sort of an irony of hypocrisies that the film called Speed Racer moves at a snails pace. But the Wachowski's never seemed to figure out that this wasn't a high concept action flick like The Matrix. It was a film based on an anime about a guy who races a really cool car to fight corporate corruption and avenge his brother's death. Stick to the racing guys.
But the remarkably talented cast did their damnedest to work with the little they were given. Hirsch (Alpha Dog, Into the Wild) has set himself up as one of the most promising young actors in the game, and even with the kitchy dialog and drawn out non-racing scenes, you get this sense that he really is trying to do both his talent and the material justice. If only the Wachowski's had done the same.
Ricci (Black Snake Moan) is pitch perfect as Trixie. As is Goodman (The Big Lebowski) as Pops. The two seemed to have a deeper understanding of the characters, that went beyond what was handed to them at rehearsals. Granted, Pops and Trixie aren't the most complex characters in the world, but they certainly are fun, and iconic in their own way. They knew it was important to get the characters right, and they did. Kudos to them.
I would have to say that kids and those with only a passing interest in the original Speed Racer would enjoy this (especially kids), as the more hard core fans will only leave the theatre disappointed and feeling nothing but resentment and disdain for the brothers Wachowski.
- Brodie Mann
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Iron Man
Iron Man
5 Stars
The trailer for this film spoke volumes. The film... speaks an entire library. It falls in line with the great superhero films, like Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins. And in some ways, tops them. Such is Iron Man.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a multi-billion dollar industrialist who made his money from weapons development for the military. After experiencing the destructive nature of his arms first hand while a hostage in Afghanistan, Stark feels it necessary to change his life's goal, much to the chagrin of his business partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). Keeping Stark on track and in line are his assistant/love interest Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his military liaison/best friend Jim Rhoades (Terrance Howard). In order to combat his former war profiteering ways, Stark develops an advanced suit of armor with the latest in robotics, computers, weaponry and metals, leading him to be affectionately known as the Iron Man.
In recent years, mostly since 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Downey has become one of my favourite actors. and the character of Stark/Iron Man is the best for him. Or maybe he's the best for the character. The thing fascinating thing about Stark is his motives behind being a hero. With Batman it's revenge, Superman the desire to do good and Spider-man it's guilt. But with Iron Man, it's atonement. Stark experiences first hand the wrath of his weapons. And then he realizes that he has to do more than just denounce weapons production. He has to right his wrongs. Only way to do that, is to be Iron Man.
And that's where Downey takes over. Downey has a knack for playing uniquely troubled characters. Tony Stark is one that he deeply understands, as he himself is a fan of the comic book. Downey figured out the character, and enveloped it. Too many times we had Brandon Routh as Superman or Tom Jane as The Punisher. But with this, it was Robert Downey, Jr. is Iron Man.
But Downey, as talented as he is, did not make this flick on his own. There was the bizarre, inexplicable romantic chemistry between him and Paltrow, as his long suffering assistant Pepper Potts. The two actors have had very different careers, and never in a million years would I have picked those two to portray romantic leads in a film. But for some reason, it worked. The fact that they are so different, and so are the characters, made it work.
Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, Arlington Road) is an actor, who if you were to ask me to define his career, I couldn't. He's played a multitude of characters in a myriad of different genres. But his turn as the villainous Obadiah Stane/War Monger is a fantastic look at a villain. He wasn't the traditional villain. He wasn't driven by hatred for the hero, or megalomaniacal desires. He's driven by protecting his own interests in war profiteering. He's the embodiment of true villainy. He's looking out for number one, and he's protecting his greedy interest. He's got no real regard for anyone else, just himself. He's the perfect counterpoint to Downey's Stark.
Director Jon Favreau deserves a lot of the credit for this film. He kept the reigns on the story to keep it from getting too out there, and actually explored the practical science of Iron Man. Sure you have to suspend some disbelief as several pieces of technology don't exist or completely defy laws of physics. But a lot of it is very interesting. And Favreau, like Downey, knows and understand the material. He was able to respectfully bring Iron Man to the big screen.
I highly recommend this for anyone. It combines what made the dreadful Fantastic Four popular and what made Batman Begins so damn good. It finds the balance with light fun, hard core action and in-depth character study.
5 Stars
The trailer for this film spoke volumes. The film... speaks an entire library. It falls in line with the great superhero films, like Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins. And in some ways, tops them. Such is Iron Man.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a multi-billion dollar industrialist who made his money from weapons development for the military. After experiencing the destructive nature of his arms first hand while a hostage in Afghanistan, Stark feels it necessary to change his life's goal, much to the chagrin of his business partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). Keeping Stark on track and in line are his assistant/love interest Pepper Pots (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his military liaison/best friend Jim Rhoades (Terrance Howard). In order to combat his former war profiteering ways, Stark develops an advanced suit of armor with the latest in robotics, computers, weaponry and metals, leading him to be affectionately known as the Iron Man.
In recent years, mostly since 2005's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Downey has become one of my favourite actors. and the character of Stark/Iron Man is the best for him. Or maybe he's the best for the character. The thing fascinating thing about Stark is his motives behind being a hero. With Batman it's revenge, Superman the desire to do good and Spider-man it's guilt. But with Iron Man, it's atonement. Stark experiences first hand the wrath of his weapons. And then he realizes that he has to do more than just denounce weapons production. He has to right his wrongs. Only way to do that, is to be Iron Man.
And that's where Downey takes over. Downey has a knack for playing uniquely troubled characters. Tony Stark is one that he deeply understands, as he himself is a fan of the comic book. Downey figured out the character, and enveloped it. Too many times we had Brandon Routh as Superman or Tom Jane as The Punisher. But with this, it was Robert Downey, Jr. is Iron Man.
But Downey, as talented as he is, did not make this flick on his own. There was the bizarre, inexplicable romantic chemistry between him and Paltrow, as his long suffering assistant Pepper Potts. The two actors have had very different careers, and never in a million years would I have picked those two to portray romantic leads in a film. But for some reason, it worked. The fact that they are so different, and so are the characters, made it work.
Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski, Arlington Road) is an actor, who if you were to ask me to define his career, I couldn't. He's played a multitude of characters in a myriad of different genres. But his turn as the villainous Obadiah Stane/War Monger is a fantastic look at a villain. He wasn't the traditional villain. He wasn't driven by hatred for the hero, or megalomaniacal desires. He's driven by protecting his own interests in war profiteering. He's the embodiment of true villainy. He's looking out for number one, and he's protecting his greedy interest. He's got no real regard for anyone else, just himself. He's the perfect counterpoint to Downey's Stark.
Director Jon Favreau deserves a lot of the credit for this film. He kept the reigns on the story to keep it from getting too out there, and actually explored the practical science of Iron Man. Sure you have to suspend some disbelief as several pieces of technology don't exist or completely defy laws of physics. But a lot of it is very interesting. And Favreau, like Downey, knows and understand the material. He was able to respectfully bring Iron Man to the big screen.
I highly recommend this for anyone. It combines what made the dreadful Fantastic Four popular and what made Batman Begins so damn good. It finds the balance with light fun, hard core action and in-depth character study.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Live from... Marquette? It's... Friday morning?
Brodie Fanns!
What we've got tonight is one of the most important and longest running shows in television history.
Saturday Night Live.
In it's 33 year history it has certainly had it's ups and downs. It's highs and it's lows. It's really fucking high man's and it's terrible lows. But through it all, you cannot argue the undeniable talent that has walked through the doors at studio 8H. And I'm just talking cast and writing staff. Fuck the hosts/musical guests.
Here's the first ever sketch on SNL:
I obviously wasn't around for it's start, it's older than me by 10 years and 18 days. I joined in the fun during it's 3rd hey day of the early 90's era. Phil Hartman, Kevin Nealon, Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey, Chris Farley, David Spade, Adam Sandler, Jan Hooks, early Tim Meadows. That's when I joined, It was later that I got into the older stuff, thanks to some old records of my dad's, and thankfully TV specials about the show. And of course reruns.
In the late 70's, there really wasn't anything to cater to the younger crowd in terms of late night comedy. Sure, I look back on Johnny Carson as a pioneer, but had I been around 30 odd years ago... it would have been different.
But along comes this cat named Lorne Michaels. A nobody at the time. And he says, "Hey, I've got a show for you." Several pitches later, "... The Aristocrats!"
Kidding. It was a late night variety show, musical guests, sketch comedy, short films. It's about what's hip, what's cool, what's now. And he puts together this phenomenal ensemble cast of Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, Gilda Radner, John Belushi, Jane Curtain, Garret Morris and Larraine Newman. The first guest host was George Carlin, first musical guests were Billy Preston and Janis Ian. The first sketch I saw of the original cast was this one, from the 7th episode with Richard Pryor:
That sketch would never make the air today. Why? Too racially charged. But it's hilarious. It's one of the funniest sketches in SNL history, and it would never make the air today.
It showed brilliant writing, and brilliant timing between the two comedian/actors. You just don't get that today.
I don't really want to get into the full history of the show, for several reasons. a) it's just too damn long and storied. b) I don't know it all. c) a lot of it would probably boring to you.
If you really want to get into it, there is this great book called "Live From New York: An Uncensored History..."
That hyper-link takes you to the Amazon page for it. It's really good, it's written like a documentary (and should be a documentary), with excerpts written by cast, crew, writers, network execs and guests. It's a compendium. It's written by people much more knowledgeable than I.
But here's the thing about SNL and me. It, for whatever reason, spoke to me. It came into my life right when I was getting into comedy. And it showed me how much there was to it, and how much fun it could be. And how smart it could be.
Best cast is debatable, best Weekend Update anchor is debatable (not really, it was Norm McDonald), best cast member is debatable, best sketch is debatable, best host is debatable. But what isn't debatable, is the fact that this show is an institution. Even for people who have been around longer than the show, at this point, it's hard for them to remember a time when the show wasn't on the air.
Even though it really does suck right now, I still watch SNL. I will continue to watch SNL. There is promise in three newer cast members. Bill Hader, Kristin Wiig and Andy Samberg.
Bill Hader (as Al Pacino):
Andy Samberg (with Chris Parnell):
Kristin Wiig (as Penelope):
I liked that last sketch. It needs work. But it's interesting. The character could use some fine tuning. It's almost there.
And with that... I leave you with one of my all time favourite sketches. It involves Christopher Walken. And it doesn't involve a cowbell.
- Brodie Mann
What we've got tonight is one of the most important and longest running shows in television history.
Saturday Night Live.
In it's 33 year history it has certainly had it's ups and downs. It's highs and it's lows. It's really fucking high man's and it's terrible lows. But through it all, you cannot argue the undeniable talent that has walked through the doors at studio 8H. And I'm just talking cast and writing staff. Fuck the hosts/musical guests.
Here's the first ever sketch on SNL:
I obviously wasn't around for it's start, it's older than me by 10 years and 18 days. I joined in the fun during it's 3rd hey day of the early 90's era. Phil Hartman, Kevin Nealon, Mike Meyers, Dana Carvey, Chris Farley, David Spade, Adam Sandler, Jan Hooks, early Tim Meadows. That's when I joined, It was later that I got into the older stuff, thanks to some old records of my dad's, and thankfully TV specials about the show. And of course reruns.
In the late 70's, there really wasn't anything to cater to the younger crowd in terms of late night comedy. Sure, I look back on Johnny Carson as a pioneer, but had I been around 30 odd years ago... it would have been different.
But along comes this cat named Lorne Michaels. A nobody at the time. And he says, "Hey, I've got a show for you." Several pitches later, "... The Aristocrats!"
Kidding. It was a late night variety show, musical guests, sketch comedy, short films. It's about what's hip, what's cool, what's now. And he puts together this phenomenal ensemble cast of Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, Gilda Radner, John Belushi, Jane Curtain, Garret Morris and Larraine Newman. The first guest host was George Carlin, first musical guests were Billy Preston and Janis Ian. The first sketch I saw of the original cast was this one, from the 7th episode with Richard Pryor:
That sketch would never make the air today. Why? Too racially charged. But it's hilarious. It's one of the funniest sketches in SNL history, and it would never make the air today.
It showed brilliant writing, and brilliant timing between the two comedian/actors. You just don't get that today.
I don't really want to get into the full history of the show, for several reasons. a) it's just too damn long and storied. b) I don't know it all. c) a lot of it would probably boring to you.
If you really want to get into it, there is this great book called "Live From New York: An Uncensored History..."
That hyper-link takes you to the Amazon page for it. It's really good, it's written like a documentary (and should be a documentary), with excerpts written by cast, crew, writers, network execs and guests. It's a compendium. It's written by people much more knowledgeable than I.
But here's the thing about SNL and me. It, for whatever reason, spoke to me. It came into my life right when I was getting into comedy. And it showed me how much there was to it, and how much fun it could be. And how smart it could be.
Best cast is debatable, best Weekend Update anchor is debatable (not really, it was Norm McDonald), best cast member is debatable, best sketch is debatable, best host is debatable. But what isn't debatable, is the fact that this show is an institution. Even for people who have been around longer than the show, at this point, it's hard for them to remember a time when the show wasn't on the air.
Even though it really does suck right now, I still watch SNL. I will continue to watch SNL. There is promise in three newer cast members. Bill Hader, Kristin Wiig and Andy Samberg.
Bill Hader (as Al Pacino):
Andy Samberg (with Chris Parnell):
Kristin Wiig (as Penelope):
I liked that last sketch. It needs work. But it's interesting. The character could use some fine tuning. It's almost there.
And with that... I leave you with one of my all time favourite sketches. It involves Christopher Walken. And it doesn't involve a cowbell.
- Brodie Mann
Friday, April 25, 2008
Summer Movie Edition. With Trailers!
Brodie Fanns!
Aloha everybody. April is coming to an end next week, and you know what that means. I think you do. You should. It's the start of the Summer Movie Season. Calenders be damned, Hollywood starts the summer in May. And holy shit do they start it in May. I'm going to give you the full Summer movie forecast of the flicks you should definitely check out, starting with the finest month of releases I have seen in a looooooooong time.
MAY
2nd: Iron Man Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrance Howard and Jeff Bridges. Directed by Jon Favreau. I'm going to let the trailer do the talking on this one.
9th: Speed Racer Emile Hirsch, Matthew Fox, Christina Ricci, John Goodman and Susan Sarandon. Directed by The Wachowski Brothers. A lot of people have prematurely dismissed this film, and I think it's because of an intense misunderstanding. The Wachowskis (The Matrix) are two on the forefront of the digital revolution in cinema, and they're taking filmmaking in a very interesting direction. This film is not intended to be a realistic portrayal of super car racing. It's meant to be campy and wild and bizarre and resemble a strong acid trip. It's meant to be like the cartoon. I think it'll surprise and delight.
16th: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Starring William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skander Keynes, Georgie Henley and Ben Barnes. Directed by Andrew Adamson. The first one was fantastic. And I honestly can't wait to see how they handle this and future Chronicles.
23rd: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Starring Harrison Ford, Shia Labeouf and Cate Blanchett. Directed by Steven Spielberg. When watching the trailer, you can't help but get giddy when you see the hat while the opening bars of the theme slowly rise in the background. And come on... the addition of Cate Blanchett? Awesome!
JUNE
13th: The Incredible Hulk. Starring Edward Norton, Tim Roth and Liv Tyler. Directed by Louis Leterrier. This is a "do-over" for the Hulk franchise, with Marvel crying mulligan over the last one. This time, it's an all new cast, all new crew, all new Hulk. I'm a little nervous after hearing about the row between Leterrier/Norton and the producers, debating on whether the film should be plot/character driven (former) or action scene driven (latter). But I have confidence Norton wouldn't attach his name to complete piece of shit... like Ang Lee's Hulk was.
20th: Get Smart. Starring Steve Carrell, Anne Hathaway and Alan Arkin. Directed by Peter Segal. As with any feature version of a beloved TV show, I enter with caution. However I'm enamoured with the casting of Carrell as Maxwell Smart. And though she is young, Hathaway has been impressing me lately. So time will tell.
27th: Wall-E. Starring Jeff Garlin and Fred Willard. Directed by Andrew Stanton. As a general rule, I don't see animated films in theatres. Animated films are attended by kids. I don't like kids. I especially don't like kids in theatres. But with Pixar movies... I make exceptions. And this looks to be their best. I simply can't wait for this one.
JULY
4th: Hancock. Starring Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman. Directed by Peter Berg. I like this because it's an alternate take on the superhero genre. It's like the "Behind the Music," so to speak, of Superman. And Will Smith's return to his comfortable throne of 4th of July Box Office King is a welcome return.
11th: Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Starring Ron Pearlman and Doug Jones. Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Hellboy is the hidden gem of the comic book genre. It's smaller, but it's unique. Which is why it's smaller, I suppose. It's a fun little-big flick, that by all accounts shouldn't exist, but for some reason does. And I like it that way. Check it out. You won't see it gross $200 million. But you probably won't have as much fun at the theatres if you miss it.
17th: The Dark Knight Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Aaron Eckhart. Easily the most anticipated movie of the year, partly due to Ledger's untimely death. I for one am eager to see his next to final performance. If the trailer is any indication, it very well could be one of the finest, most demented performances ever put on film.
25th: The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Starring David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Billy Connolly. Directed by Chris Carter. Alls I knows is, this takes place outside of the main thrust of the series, so it's like one of the off shoot episodes (which were always fun). And that we've been waiting too damn long for this one. But it's finally here. I just wish there was a trailer.
AUGUST
8th: Pineapple Express. Starring Seth Rogan, James Franco and Gary Cole. Directed by David Gordon Green. If the movie is even half as funny as the trailer, it'll be worth it's proverbial weight in gold.
15th: Tropic Thunder. Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., Jack Black and Steve Coogan. Directed by Ben Stiller. If Platoon proved that war is hell, then Tropic Thunder proves that war is hilarious!
That's it for now. Look out in August for the fall preview.
- Brodie Mann
Aloha everybody. April is coming to an end next week, and you know what that means. I think you do. You should. It's the start of the Summer Movie Season. Calenders be damned, Hollywood starts the summer in May. And holy shit do they start it in May. I'm going to give you the full Summer movie forecast of the flicks you should definitely check out, starting with the finest month of releases I have seen in a looooooooong time.
MAY
2nd: Iron Man Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrance Howard and Jeff Bridges. Directed by Jon Favreau. I'm going to let the trailer do the talking on this one.
9th: Speed Racer Emile Hirsch, Matthew Fox, Christina Ricci, John Goodman and Susan Sarandon. Directed by The Wachowski Brothers. A lot of people have prematurely dismissed this film, and I think it's because of an intense misunderstanding. The Wachowskis (The Matrix) are two on the forefront of the digital revolution in cinema, and they're taking filmmaking in a very interesting direction. This film is not intended to be a realistic portrayal of super car racing. It's meant to be campy and wild and bizarre and resemble a strong acid trip. It's meant to be like the cartoon. I think it'll surprise and delight.
16th: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Starring William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skander Keynes, Georgie Henley and Ben Barnes. Directed by Andrew Adamson. The first one was fantastic. And I honestly can't wait to see how they handle this and future Chronicles.
23rd: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Starring Harrison Ford, Shia Labeouf and Cate Blanchett. Directed by Steven Spielberg. When watching the trailer, you can't help but get giddy when you see the hat while the opening bars of the theme slowly rise in the background. And come on... the addition of Cate Blanchett? Awesome!
JUNE
13th: The Incredible Hulk. Starring Edward Norton, Tim Roth and Liv Tyler. Directed by Louis Leterrier. This is a "do-over" for the Hulk franchise, with Marvel crying mulligan over the last one. This time, it's an all new cast, all new crew, all new Hulk. I'm a little nervous after hearing about the row between Leterrier/Norton and the producers, debating on whether the film should be plot/character driven (former) or action scene driven (latter). But I have confidence Norton wouldn't attach his name to complete piece of shit... like Ang Lee's Hulk was.
20th: Get Smart. Starring Steve Carrell, Anne Hathaway and Alan Arkin. Directed by Peter Segal. As with any feature version of a beloved TV show, I enter with caution. However I'm enamoured with the casting of Carrell as Maxwell Smart. And though she is young, Hathaway has been impressing me lately. So time will tell.
27th: Wall-E. Starring Jeff Garlin and Fred Willard. Directed by Andrew Stanton. As a general rule, I don't see animated films in theatres. Animated films are attended by kids. I don't like kids. I especially don't like kids in theatres. But with Pixar movies... I make exceptions. And this looks to be their best. I simply can't wait for this one.
JULY
4th: Hancock. Starring Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Jason Bateman. Directed by Peter Berg. I like this because it's an alternate take on the superhero genre. It's like the "Behind the Music," so to speak, of Superman. And Will Smith's return to his comfortable throne of 4th of July Box Office King is a welcome return.
11th: Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Starring Ron Pearlman and Doug Jones. Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Hellboy is the hidden gem of the comic book genre. It's smaller, but it's unique. Which is why it's smaller, I suppose. It's a fun little-big flick, that by all accounts shouldn't exist, but for some reason does. And I like it that way. Check it out. You won't see it gross $200 million. But you probably won't have as much fun at the theatres if you miss it.
17th: The Dark Knight Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and Aaron Eckhart. Easily the most anticipated movie of the year, partly due to Ledger's untimely death. I for one am eager to see his next to final performance. If the trailer is any indication, it very well could be one of the finest, most demented performances ever put on film.
25th: The X-Files: I Want to Believe. Starring David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson and Billy Connolly. Directed by Chris Carter. Alls I knows is, this takes place outside of the main thrust of the series, so it's like one of the off shoot episodes (which were always fun). And that we've been waiting too damn long for this one. But it's finally here. I just wish there was a trailer.
AUGUST
8th: Pineapple Express. Starring Seth Rogan, James Franco and Gary Cole. Directed by David Gordon Green. If the movie is even half as funny as the trailer, it'll be worth it's proverbial weight in gold.
15th: Tropic Thunder. Starring Ben Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., Jack Black and Steve Coogan. Directed by Ben Stiller. If Platoon proved that war is hell, then Tropic Thunder proves that war is hilarious!
That's it for now. Look out in August for the fall preview.
- Brodie Mann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
