This one is coming in a little later than usual. I knew that out of any movie I had ever reviewed, I would probably have to do the most explaining myself on this one, due to the fan base. I wanted to take my time with it... Reviewing this film, I run into very similar obstacles I did when reviewing Sex and the City last year. No really... I did... With Sex and the City, I had to separate my male brain from my film critic brain. With Watchmen, I have to separate my fanboy brain from my film critic brain. So, with that said, here goes nothing...
OH Before I get to it...
Fired Up! - 2.5 stars - not as bad as I expected, but still not that good.
Revolutionary Road - 3.5 stars - Great performances, but otherwise quite drab.
The Wrestler - 4.5 stars - A great bio-flick, even if it's fake.
Watchmen
5 Stars
What do you do when charged with the task of filming what is considered not only the greatest graphic novel of all time, but one of the greatest novels of the 20th century? What has been dubbed the unfilmable? Where your every cinematic and artistic choice will be scrutinized by fanboys and critics alike? If you're Zak Snyder, you make the best damn movie you can, and hope for the best.
Set in an alternate 1985, where Nixon is still president, American/Russian tensions are at an all time high, and costumed vigilantes are the norm, Watchmen is an epic morality tale. After the Watchmen, the second generation of costumed vigilantes are declared illegal by a government ban, few refuse to give up the good fight. When someone kills one of their own, the remaining few must figure out if it was random, or part of a deeper conspiracy to wipe out ex-heroes.
Since I would be spending a significant amount of time delving into the film, I decided to keep the summary brief and concise. The story is much bigger, and better than that summery leads you to believe, but all I can say is, read the book.
The performances matched the scope of the film. In that they were epic. Any lack of character development that exists, the blame falls on the editor. To fans they were beloved. But to the un-initiated, they were problematic. No matter who the usual comic hero is, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, there's an expectation of perfection as the hero. The alter-ego may be full of character flaws. But the hero is perfect. Again, to the fans, we know the Watchmen. We know their flaws. We know their moral ambiguity. For Jackie Earle Haley to create both the unlikable Walter Kovacs and questionable Rorschach to both satisfy the fans in their expectations and appeal to the un-initiated, despite him being a dislikable character. It's not just true for Haley's Rorschach. It's true for Patrick Wilson's nebbish Dan Dreiberg/dauntless Nite Owl II. Malin Ackermin's Laurie Jupiter tends to over-anylize things, but her Silk Spectre II is fearless. All of the actors involved made the characters relatable, likeable and personable, but never let you forget that there were lines that were going to be crossed.
Aside from Haley (Little Children, Bad News Bears), the stand-out performances belong to both Jeffrey Dean Morgan ("Grey's Anatomy") and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous) playing Edward Blake/The Comedian and Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, respectfully. Going scene to scene for Morgan, you'd get Blake's twisted, depraved side, and then in the next you'd get his vulnerability. In one scene, you got both. At the same time. As for Crudup's Manhattan, he was a man so detached from our world, he eventually just leaves, only to later realize the value in humanity.
This film never could have lived up to any fan's expectations, unless that fan's expectations were low. While that statement may inherently contradict the 5 star rating I gave it, it's exactly why I took so long to write this review. With any film based on something with a huge cult fanbase, and such a prestigous pedigree that Watchmen has, fan's (aka "fanboys") expectations are going to be extremely high, and extremely strict. We (I say we, as a fan of the novel) look at it through the prism of the source material. It's true for X-Men. It's true for Star Trek. It's true for Watchmen. We hold the cinematic adaptation to a higher standard than other films. An impossibly high standard.
The first thing I learned in film class (even though it is, technically, blatently obvious) is that books and films are two vastly different mediums. Things can be done in books that can never be done on film. Each individual reader has their own interpretation of the written word and the artistically rendered panel. It's true for "Frankenstein." It's true for "Grapes of Wrath." It's true for "Watchmen." The cinematic version is one man's interpretation... the director's, in this case, Zack Snyder. And when it comes to properties that have such a rabid following, he not only has to please the fanboys, but also appeal to a general movie going audience. He also had to make changes, because somethings in the book either a) won't translate to film or b) would make the film 4 hours long.
Snyder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) made the film as he saw it, to the best of his ability. But he knew full well going in that people weren't going to like it. That was the chance he took. I admire him a great deal for taking that risk. He had the balls to step up to the plate. He had the balls to make the best film he could.
The film never suffers from pacing problems. It appears to be a scatter shot focus, but there's so much story to tell, and so little time to tell it, even if it does run almost 3 hours long. He effectively uses the opening title sequence as exposition, setting up the back story of masked vigilantes, and how we got to where we are now, in terms of the actual film. Specific back stories are explored more indepth throughout the film, but the credit sequence is where we are brought up to speed.
There were a few faults I did end up seeing, but this could cycle back to the "fanboy's personal interpretation." I felt the focus was on the wrong two characters. Too much Silk/Owl, not enough Rorschach. I still feel that, since the thrust of the story is Rorschach investigating Comedian's murder. But the Silk/Owl segments are integral, too. I initially had reservations about the changing of Rorschach's back story, as pertaining to what finally pushed him over the edge. The book's explanation was pitch perfect, and gave a moral ambiguity to the character. The film removed that. As was pointed out by friend/co-worker Jeff, had they gone with the book's version, people would have easily drawn a connection to Saw, and that would have left a bad taste in many viewers' mouths.
The major fault with the film, is also a fault of this review so far. Little was actually done with Adrien Veidt/Ozymandias, played by Matthew Goode (Match Point). It's important to the story. Both book and film version. But little is done with him. For a layperson, that would be quite frustrating and confusing. For a fanboy, it's just frustrating.
When reviewing a film, you have to place it both in context of it's time, and in context of the history of film. This film is visually stunning, well put together, a faithful adaptation and wonderfully acted. In the history of film, does that not earn it recognition amongst the finest? It does. In context, when judged against it's contemporaries, is it a step above? Does it raise the bar? Does it change the game? Yes.
I give it 5 stars because Zack Snyder and crew set out to make the best movie they could given the odds they were up against. And they overcame those odds. Any nit-picking aimed at the film is just that... nit-picking by a fan is angry that the tiniest detail that THEY wanted wasn't in the film. Nit-picking by a fanboy who expected 1 Million%, not fully understanding that percents only go up to 100.
Also, make all the jokes you want, but the glowing blue Dr. Manhattan nudity... I didn't have a problem with it. I didn't notice after awhile.
The end.
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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.
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
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 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
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.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
4.5 Stars
You'd think that in the 3 years since Judd Apatow hit it big with his heartwarmingly raunchy The 40 Year Old Virgin, he'd start to lose some steam. But with the Apatow produced Forgetting Sarah Marshall, he's proved that he's got more than enough material to keep going.
Composer Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) gets dumped by his TV star girlfriend of five years, the titular Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). In an effort to clear his head and escape the anguish of the break up, and at the suggestion of his well-meaning step-brother Brian (Bill Hader), he takes a week long vacation to a Hawaiian resort. Unfortunately for him, Sarah is vacationing at the same resort with her new fling, pop sensation Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Luckily for Peter, he's got sexy hotel clerk Rachel Jensen (Mila Kunis) to take his mind of everything.
Segel's (Freaks and Geeks, Knocked Up) script is one of damn near perfection. It approaches the level of comedic balance and precision that one rarely sees these days. You are busting a gut, laughing your ass off, but then he comes in with a really poignant scene to center it, then explodes it all over again. All within minutes.
The best scene to exemplify this, is the now infamous Jason Segel nude scene, where you get to see Jason's Segel. And some credit must go to director Nicholas Stoller (making his feature debut) for this. But normal scene, nothing particular hilarious. Peter gets dumped by Sarah, she's going through the "I love you, but..." speech. Peter just happens to have just stepped out of the shower, and he's standing there, naked. It's not a typically funny scene, but the fact that he's naked honestly adds a bizarre level to it. It is as I've always described Apatow's films and shows- earnest.
And with the literal balls to stand there, Jason Segel immediately launches himself to comedic lead status. Of course he was in tune with the material he wrote, but that gave him an intuitive look into the character. And he played the jilted lover trying to move on with sheer perfection.
One thing I've always admired about Apatow and crew is that they've always been able to write fascinating and hilarious roles for women, outside of the tired ditzy, damsel cliche. Both Kunis (That 70's Show, Get Over It) and Bell (Veronica Mars, Heroes) turn in two of the finest female comedic performances of this era. They fall in line with the working relationship Segal, Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd have developed over the course of their past several films, and steal scenes away from them.
The film would be nothing without that supporting cast, including Hill (Superbad, Strange Wilderness), Rudd (Anchorman, Knocked Up), British comic Aldous Snow, and SNL star Hader. Their parts always move the story along, but never drag it down.
It's one of the funniest movies in a long time, one that holds up against some of the great classic comedies, and Richard Roeper was right to rank this in his top 50 comedies of all time.
Here's a trailer for you.
-Brodie Mann
4.5 Stars
You'd think that in the 3 years since Judd Apatow hit it big with his heartwarmingly raunchy The 40 Year Old Virgin, he'd start to lose some steam. But with the Apatow produced Forgetting Sarah Marshall, he's proved that he's got more than enough material to keep going.
Composer Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) gets dumped by his TV star girlfriend of five years, the titular Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). In an effort to clear his head and escape the anguish of the break up, and at the suggestion of his well-meaning step-brother Brian (Bill Hader), he takes a week long vacation to a Hawaiian resort. Unfortunately for him, Sarah is vacationing at the same resort with her new fling, pop sensation Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Luckily for Peter, he's got sexy hotel clerk Rachel Jensen (Mila Kunis) to take his mind of everything.
Segel's (Freaks and Geeks, Knocked Up) script is one of damn near perfection. It approaches the level of comedic balance and precision that one rarely sees these days. You are busting a gut, laughing your ass off, but then he comes in with a really poignant scene to center it, then explodes it all over again. All within minutes.
The best scene to exemplify this, is the now infamous Jason Segel nude scene, where you get to see Jason's Segel. And some credit must go to director Nicholas Stoller (making his feature debut) for this. But normal scene, nothing particular hilarious. Peter gets dumped by Sarah, she's going through the "I love you, but..." speech. Peter just happens to have just stepped out of the shower, and he's standing there, naked. It's not a typically funny scene, but the fact that he's naked honestly adds a bizarre level to it. It is as I've always described Apatow's films and shows- earnest.
And with the literal balls to stand there, Jason Segel immediately launches himself to comedic lead status. Of course he was in tune with the material he wrote, but that gave him an intuitive look into the character. And he played the jilted lover trying to move on with sheer perfection.
One thing I've always admired about Apatow and crew is that they've always been able to write fascinating and hilarious roles for women, outside of the tired ditzy, damsel cliche. Both Kunis (That 70's Show, Get Over It) and Bell (Veronica Mars, Heroes) turn in two of the finest female comedic performances of this era. They fall in line with the working relationship Segal, Jonah Hill and Paul Rudd have developed over the course of their past several films, and steal scenes away from them.
The film would be nothing without that supporting cast, including Hill (Superbad, Strange Wilderness), Rudd (Anchorman, Knocked Up), British comic Aldous Snow, and SNL star Hader. Their parts always move the story along, but never drag it down.
It's one of the funniest movies in a long time, one that holds up against some of the great classic comedies, and Richard Roeper was right to rank this in his top 50 comedies of all time.
Here's a trailer for you.
-Brodie Mann
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Leatherheads
Leatherheads
2.5 stars
George Clooney seems to have this fascination with the Golden Age of Hollywood. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He's done some great work that hearkens back to older styles of filmmaking. But, like anyone, he can misstep. And holy crap does he with Leatherheads.
Leatherheads, essentially, is about the start of pro-football. Clooney pulls double duty, both directing and starring as Dodge Connelly, a cocky, yet aging football star of the Duluth Bulldogs in the laughable pro-football league of 1925. In an attempt to continue playing and subsequently legitimize the sport he loves, Connelly scouts the talents of hot shot college star and WWI hero Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) to bring in fans and, more importantly, money. Lexie Littleton (Renèe Zellweger) is a reporter charged with debunking the myth of Carter Rutherford, but plays romantic interest to both male leads instead. Hijinks ensue!
Yes. Hijinks. Anyway... It's not a wholly unlikable movie, and with both Zellweger (Chicago, Empire Records) and Clooney's (Good Night and Good Luck, O Brother Where Art Thou) classic charm, matched with Krasinski's (The Office- US version) boyish charisma, it's really hard not to like it.
But, and it's tough for me, as a huge Clooney fan, to admit this, Clooney got a bit to esoteric. Which I suppose is a fancy way of saying "full of himself." Not in a bad way, mind you. But he tried to throw too much into the stew and it came out muddy, with a funny after taste.
When it was good, it was really good. Really funny. But there were just as many, if not more, bad scenes that dragged down the entire proceedings. There could have been some big cuts made to the film, and the storyline would have remained intact, and more enjoyable as a whole. Instead you walk away saying "I liked this scene, but not this one. And then this one, but not so much that one."
Again, no actor was bad. There just wasn't anything exquisitely good about their performances. Though Krasinski holding his own against the formidable co-star that is George Clooney was impressive. His career seems to be following a similar trajectory as Clooney's. Breakout star of hit NBC during the Must See TV Thursday night line-up, make a couple of movies, eventually move on from said show. I just hope he doesn't have a fiasco of Batman and Robin like proportions on the horizon.
So... final verdict, not terrible, just not very good either. You'll walk away unfulfilled. Definitely worth a rental though!
Peace out!
- Brodie Mann
2.5 stars
George Clooney seems to have this fascination with the Golden Age of Hollywood. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He's done some great work that hearkens back to older styles of filmmaking. But, like anyone, he can misstep. And holy crap does he with Leatherheads.
Leatherheads, essentially, is about the start of pro-football. Clooney pulls double duty, both directing and starring as Dodge Connelly, a cocky, yet aging football star of the Duluth Bulldogs in the laughable pro-football league of 1925. In an attempt to continue playing and subsequently legitimize the sport he loves, Connelly scouts the talents of hot shot college star and WWI hero Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) to bring in fans and, more importantly, money. Lexie Littleton (Renèe Zellweger) is a reporter charged with debunking the myth of Carter Rutherford, but plays romantic interest to both male leads instead. Hijinks ensue!
Yes. Hijinks. Anyway... It's not a wholly unlikable movie, and with both Zellweger (Chicago, Empire Records) and Clooney's (Good Night and Good Luck, O Brother Where Art Thou) classic charm, matched with Krasinski's (The Office- US version) boyish charisma, it's really hard not to like it.
But, and it's tough for me, as a huge Clooney fan, to admit this, Clooney got a bit to esoteric. Which I suppose is a fancy way of saying "full of himself." Not in a bad way, mind you. But he tried to throw too much into the stew and it came out muddy, with a funny after taste.
When it was good, it was really good. Really funny. But there were just as many, if not more, bad scenes that dragged down the entire proceedings. There could have been some big cuts made to the film, and the storyline would have remained intact, and more enjoyable as a whole. Instead you walk away saying "I liked this scene, but not this one. And then this one, but not so much that one."
Again, no actor was bad. There just wasn't anything exquisitely good about their performances. Though Krasinski holding his own against the formidable co-star that is George Clooney was impressive. His career seems to be following a similar trajectory as Clooney's. Breakout star of hit NBC during the Must See TV Thursday night line-up, make a couple of movies, eventually move on from said show. I just hope he doesn't have a fiasco of Batman and Robin like proportions on the horizon.
So... final verdict, not terrible, just not very good either. You'll walk away unfulfilled. Definitely worth a rental though!
Peace out!
- Brodie Mann
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Doomsday
Doomsday
0 stars
No... that's not a typo. I'm really giving this zero stars. No stars. Not even half a damn star. It gets zero. Why? Because it's unoriginal. I know what you're probably thinking... "But Brodie, Hollywood has a long history of unoriginality, why is this so special?" Well, it's so blatantly unoriginal, that based on the trailer alone I picked up on at least 3 movies it ripped off. Actually viewing it gave me a few more.
*SPOILERS HERE IN* Don't read any further if you really want to see it. But I recommend you read further, because you shouldn't want to see it.
In Doomsday, the deadly Reaper virus breaks out in Scotland, causing the British government to wall off the small nation from the rest of the world. In the year 2035, a whole generation later, survivors are spotted on satellite photos, roaming around the streets of Glasgow. An elite military team is sent in to the desolate landscape that once was the mighty Scotland to extract any survivors in hope for a cure, as the Reaper virus is now making it's rounds in downtown London.
And then it gets weird. Because this is when the elite military team comes across the crazy, futuristic cannibal warrior savages that now inhabit and rule the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Taken prisoner, someone gets cooked and eaten, big fight scene... Now they're on the run from the Warrior-king, with King's sister who is leading some sort of resistance against both ruling clans. The first obviously ruled by her brother, the second led by her estranged dad, who has set up a nice little Renaissance Fair in an old castle. Military team not welcome there... big fight scene... The escape, and now there's a big chase scene with a souped up yet 25 year old BMW on the perfectly preserved country roads of Scotland. The cannibals are in this chase in standard post-apocalyptic modes of transportation. Lots of beat up old vehicles adorned with various parts of the skeletal structure. And armed to the core. Which product placement wins in the end?
YAAAWWWNNNNWho cares? Did you count 'em all? We've got Mad Max, Escape From New York, 28 Days Later..., 28 Weeks Later...(while we're at it), Waterworld, Braveheart, Army of Darkness, The Village, James Bond (pick a flick), Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome and a little Warriors thrown in for good measure.
Admittedly, some of those movies have the benefit of time on their side. The Warriors and Mad Max came out the same year as Alien, Manhattan and Apocalypse Now. In 1979, who would have guessed that in nearly 30 years time, we'd still be talking about the former two, and ranking them up there with the latter three? No one probably. And who knows, maybe in 2035 we're talking about Doomsday. Most likely cause it actually happened. Hopefully cause it actually happened, because that's the only way this movie will stay relevant once you're done reading this review.
Well... let's move on to the crap production quality, shall we? Where do I start? Is it the complete lack of direction from writer/director Neil Marshall? Yeah sure. That sucked. And I liked his previous effort, The Descent. But this... it's like he got through the first act and said "Fuck it! You remember Mad Max? Let's do that for a while." Then he got halfway through and said "Fuck it! Mel Gibson's crazy... Let's do Braveheart for a while. With Malcolm McDowell." Which is admittedly cool. The Renaissance Fair town is run by Malcolm McDowell, which as a colleague of mine said, "would be a pretty cool Ren-Fair." But then he got bored with the historical epic angle, and said "Fuck it! Let's have a car chase." Can you see why it's hard to watch?
How about the painfully flat acting of all involved? Including the usually awesome Bob Hoskins. Rhona Mitra, who's done a few episodes of Nip/Tuck and that's about it, tries to keep the "Huge star out of nowhere" mojo alive. But... she's a bad actress. She couldn't even make the "Fake/Bionic Eye" thing cool. Oh yeah, her character has a bionic eye that she can remove and use as a spy camera. How one royally fucks up the bionic eye/spy camera thing, is beyond me.
I award this film no stars. None. Zero. You go home with nothing. You suck. Do not spend money on this film.
One more thing... if this does actually happen in 2035... could we wall of Wales, instead?
- Brodie
0 stars
No... that's not a typo. I'm really giving this zero stars. No stars. Not even half a damn star. It gets zero. Why? Because it's unoriginal. I know what you're probably thinking... "But Brodie, Hollywood has a long history of unoriginality, why is this so special?" Well, it's so blatantly unoriginal, that based on the trailer alone I picked up on at least 3 movies it ripped off. Actually viewing it gave me a few more.
*SPOILERS HERE IN* Don't read any further if you really want to see it. But I recommend you read further, because you shouldn't want to see it.
In Doomsday, the deadly Reaper virus breaks out in Scotland, causing the British government to wall off the small nation from the rest of the world. In the year 2035, a whole generation later, survivors are spotted on satellite photos, roaming around the streets of Glasgow. An elite military team is sent in to the desolate landscape that once was the mighty Scotland to extract any survivors in hope for a cure, as the Reaper virus is now making it's rounds in downtown London.
And then it gets weird. Because this is when the elite military team comes across the crazy, futuristic cannibal warrior savages that now inhabit and rule the streets of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Taken prisoner, someone gets cooked and eaten, big fight scene... Now they're on the run from the Warrior-king, with King's sister who is leading some sort of resistance against both ruling clans. The first obviously ruled by her brother, the second led by her estranged dad, who has set up a nice little Renaissance Fair in an old castle. Military team not welcome there... big fight scene... The escape, and now there's a big chase scene with a souped up yet 25 year old BMW on the perfectly preserved country roads of Scotland. The cannibals are in this chase in standard post-apocalyptic modes of transportation. Lots of beat up old vehicles adorned with various parts of the skeletal structure. And armed to the core. Which product placement wins in the end?
YAAAWWWNNNNWho cares? Did you count 'em all? We've got Mad Max, Escape From New York, 28 Days Later..., 28 Weeks Later...(while we're at it), Waterworld, Braveheart, Army of Darkness, The Village, James Bond (pick a flick), Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome and a little Warriors thrown in for good measure.
Admittedly, some of those movies have the benefit of time on their side. The Warriors and Mad Max came out the same year as Alien, Manhattan and Apocalypse Now. In 1979, who would have guessed that in nearly 30 years time, we'd still be talking about the former two, and ranking them up there with the latter three? No one probably. And who knows, maybe in 2035 we're talking about Doomsday. Most likely cause it actually happened. Hopefully cause it actually happened, because that's the only way this movie will stay relevant once you're done reading this review.
Well... let's move on to the crap production quality, shall we? Where do I start? Is it the complete lack of direction from writer/director Neil Marshall? Yeah sure. That sucked. And I liked his previous effort, The Descent. But this... it's like he got through the first act and said "Fuck it! You remember Mad Max? Let's do that for a while." Then he got halfway through and said "Fuck it! Mel Gibson's crazy... Let's do Braveheart for a while. With Malcolm McDowell." Which is admittedly cool. The Renaissance Fair town is run by Malcolm McDowell, which as a colleague of mine said, "would be a pretty cool Ren-Fair." But then he got bored with the historical epic angle, and said "Fuck it! Let's have a car chase." Can you see why it's hard to watch?
How about the painfully flat acting of all involved? Including the usually awesome Bob Hoskins. Rhona Mitra, who's done a few episodes of Nip/Tuck and that's about it, tries to keep the "Huge star out of nowhere" mojo alive. But... she's a bad actress. She couldn't even make the "Fake/Bionic Eye" thing cool. Oh yeah, her character has a bionic eye that she can remove and use as a spy camera. How one royally fucks up the bionic eye/spy camera thing, is beyond me.
I award this film no stars. None. Zero. You go home with nothing. You suck. Do not spend money on this film.
One more thing... if this does actually happen in 2035... could we wall of Wales, instead?
- Brodie
Thursday, March 13, 2008
10,000 B.C.
Brodie Fanns!
New review for you. I'm goin' pre-historic on your asses.
10,000 B.C.
1 Star
So... Roland, if I may call you that. What the hell happened? You had us with Stargate, Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. And now this? I don't even know what to classify this as. It's barely a step above something the Discovery Channel would put together, only with a Sci-Fi Channel twist.
D'Leh (Steven Strait) is a hunter/warrior from what I only assume is a Sub-Saharan mountain tribe. After his tribal lands are attacked by Egyptian warlords, he embarks on a quest to save his one true love, who also happens to be his people's saviour. I think. Along the way, he meets up with other tribes who have been attacked by the Egyptians, and they all stage a revolt to free the slaves being used to build the pyramids.
Where to begin with what is wrong with this film? Is it the laughably bad dialog? The maybe dead languages they use? Could it be the very obvious visual effects they use? Or how about the oddly perfect bodies they have? I'm not talking being fit. I'm talking nice skin, well maintained hair, perfect manicure, perfect make-up. On tribes-people.
There was nothing about this production that worked. It's almost as if they wanted to fall in line with Mel Gibson's historical epics, but decided they didn't want to spend a lot of money. And good lord did it show.
And you could tell the actors were of the mindset "This movie sucks, but at least I have one more thing to put on my resume. And a paycheck." I can't comment on their performances... because to call what they all did acting is an insult to acting.
I'm being generous with my one star rating, as I usually don't believe in the "Award for just showing up" philosophy. But come on... they tried.
But really, I can't recommend this to anyone. Avoid it.
- Brodie
New review for you. I'm goin' pre-historic on your asses.
10,000 B.C.
1 Star
So... Roland, if I may call you that. What the hell happened? You had us with Stargate, Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow. And now this? I don't even know what to classify this as. It's barely a step above something the Discovery Channel would put together, only with a Sci-Fi Channel twist.
D'Leh (Steven Strait) is a hunter/warrior from what I only assume is a Sub-Saharan mountain tribe. After his tribal lands are attacked by Egyptian warlords, he embarks on a quest to save his one true love, who also happens to be his people's saviour. I think. Along the way, he meets up with other tribes who have been attacked by the Egyptians, and they all stage a revolt to free the slaves being used to build the pyramids.
Where to begin with what is wrong with this film? Is it the laughably bad dialog? The maybe dead languages they use? Could it be the very obvious visual effects they use? Or how about the oddly perfect bodies they have? I'm not talking being fit. I'm talking nice skin, well maintained hair, perfect manicure, perfect make-up. On tribes-people.
There was nothing about this production that worked. It's almost as if they wanted to fall in line with Mel Gibson's historical epics, but decided they didn't want to spend a lot of money. And good lord did it show.
And you could tell the actors were of the mindset "This movie sucks, but at least I have one more thing to put on my resume. And a paycheck." I can't comment on their performances... because to call what they all did acting is an insult to acting.
I'm being generous with my one star rating, as I usually don't believe in the "Award for just showing up" philosophy. But come on... they tried.
But really, I can't recommend this to anyone. Avoid it.
- Brodie
Monday, March 03, 2008
Vantage Point
Brodie Fanns!
It's been a week since I last saw you guys. Seriously, a week. Since the Oscars, really. And there is a perfectly logical explanation for that. That whole live blog thing I was doing, I was doing on 3 different blogs. And that took a lot out of me. It was tiring. Plus I had a few days off work, so I just sat around getting drunk all week.
Anywho!
Here's a new review-
- Brodie Mann
It's been a week since I last saw you guys. Seriously, a week. Since the Oscars, really. And there is a perfectly logical explanation for that. That whole live blog thing I was doing, I was doing on 3 different blogs. And that took a lot out of me. It was tiring. Plus I had a few days off work, so I just sat around getting drunk all week.
Anywho!
Here's a new review-
Vantage Point
3 Stars
It’s a good movie that keeps you guessing, has interesting plot twists and is well acted all around. It’s a bad movie where the plot would have been a really good season of 24.
Vantage Point is told Rashomon style (log onto IMDb and look it up), and we get several interesting perspectives on a terror plot to assassinate the president of the United States in Spain. And thanks to that nice little summary, my blog is now “one of interest” to several government agencies. We get the perspective of Secret Service agents Thomas Barnes and Kent Taylor (Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox), tourist Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker), the terrorists, their pawns, a news crew (Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana and even the president himself (William Hurt). It all culminates in a pulse pounding series of chase sequences, ending in glorious American cinema fashion: dead bad guys, heroically and miraculously alive good guys.
For what comes off as Die Hard meets 24 with a little Bourne Identity thrown in mix, it really isn’t as bad as it could have been. The mixed narrative gets a little annoying because some versions overlap with other versions, so you’re getting the same story over and over, rather than multiple yet separate stories.
I’ve long thought of Dennis Quaid as the poor man’s Harrison Ford. Which I still stand behind. But you have to remember, even if you’re getting discount store Harrison Ford, Dennis Quaid is the Target version- still really cool. At least he’s not Tom Berenger, the K-Mart Harrison Ford. It was good to see Matthew Fox take on this kind of role, as you can see him start to shed the “Jack Shephard” image he’s been relishing in for the past three and a half years. I’m interested to see what he does as Racer X in Speed Racer come May. Edgar Ramirez continues his streak of roles requiring him to be the mysterious Latino with a steely glare. But if I were making a movie that had a mysterious Latino with a steely glare in it, I would pick Ramirez, as he’s not a bad actor, just needs to step out of the typecasting.
As I said before, my interest in the plot starts to fall apart during the first act when they’re constantly re-showing the assassination. Luckily once that’s over about 40 minutes in, we can settle in on some good, old-fashioned, pulse-pounding action fun. And it doesn’t skimp on that. It is an unfortunate page right out of Jason Bourne’s playbook though, and at times, I thought I had been magically transported to the summer of ’02 and was watching Matt Damon speed around a European city.
But while it does draw a lot of comparison to previous works, it still is an enjoyable film. I predict we’ll see some heavy rotation on the USA network in a few years, as this flick seems right up their alley.
- Brodie Mann
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Jumper
Jumper
2 Stars
Ah, the sturdy piece of wood that is Hayden Christensen. Sure, a sturdy piece of wood is good for building a boat. Or a treehouse. But for acting? Not so much. I'm not saying it would have been a better film without him. But it's a start.
Jumper is the story of a young man, David, who discovers he has the super-human ability to teleport from one location to another. But instead of using it to save the world, a la Spider-Man, he decides to go for personal gain, teleporting into banks and what not, just so he can get some money. There's even a scene where he's watching the news, and there are people stranded in a flood, who he could totally save with his ability, but doesn't. Damn. What a self serving jackass, as the script wants us to believe. Then we get to the action. There's an ancient brotherhood led by a silver coiffed Samuel L. Jackson who is trying his hardest to both keep the jumpers at bay, and go 2 minutes without saying "motherfucker." And David is just trying to woo an old schoolmate, who by the way, has been under the impression that David's been dead for the past 8 years, along with anyone else who ever knew him. The film quickly devolves into an exercise in flashy special effects and even flashier location shooting. Which I will give to director Doug Liman as being pretty cool.
I always kick it off with the acting, so here goes. Samuel L. Jackson is good, as usual. When is he not. I have a theory, that he is the black Christopher Walken. The movie could be absolute shit, but he'll still be "OK" in it. As is mostly the case with this one. He seems to walk through the role as if it's just a paycheck to him, which is entirely likely. Diane Lane has become less hit and more miss recently, and this is no exception. And of course the two leads. Christensen. And Rachel Bilson. The only person I can think of with the exact same lack of charisma as Christensen. Put the two together and you get... well.. Jumper.
What happened to David Goyer? He did Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, all of the Blade movies, and coming up he's got The Flash and Magneto. So promising was his writing career. Then he turns out this P.O.S. that is an hour and a half of plot holes and missed opportunities. And that could be due to Liman not able to work the sci-fi angle. But come on. There could have been great fight scenes. Don't get me wrong, the ones they had were fantastic. But... there could have been more.
There could have been more exploration into the "Jumpers" vs. "Paladins" (shadowy Sam Jackson organization) struggle. Especially considering how HUGE of a plot point it really is. There could have been more exploration into the whole David being dead thing. I mean... they watch him fall through the ice at the age of 14-ish, he teleports out, never to be seen again. He comes back 8 years later and people treat him as if he just got home from college. What the hell? It makes little to no sense.
The whole thing should have been longer. Should have been more in depth. Should have been better.
Though I will give them credit for doing some fantastic special effects work. The teleporting was magnificent, and they kept the practical science behind it pretty accurate. The replacement of the displaced matter when a Jumper leaves an area was accurate. The comparable velocity law was accurate. Basically it was as scientifically accurate as you would expect a sci-fi flick about young adults who can create tiny black holes at will and travel anywhere in the world through them, to be.
And as Liman demonstrated in The Bourne Identity, he has a knack for doing impressive location shooting. He gets some damn fine shots of Rome, Giza, London, Tokyo and Prague. But I could watch the Travel Channel, and get the same thing. Only no Hayden Christensen. So it's better.
2 Stars go to this, but only because I'm feeling generous on President's day, and I enjoyed the special effects. If we get a competent filmmaker behind the wheel, who knows what those effects can do.
Later Brodie Fanns!
-Brodie Mann
2 Stars
Ah, the sturdy piece of wood that is Hayden Christensen. Sure, a sturdy piece of wood is good for building a boat. Or a treehouse. But for acting? Not so much. I'm not saying it would have been a better film without him. But it's a start.
Jumper is the story of a young man, David, who discovers he has the super-human ability to teleport from one location to another. But instead of using it to save the world, a la Spider-Man, he decides to go for personal gain, teleporting into banks and what not, just so he can get some money. There's even a scene where he's watching the news, and there are people stranded in a flood, who he could totally save with his ability, but doesn't. Damn. What a self serving jackass, as the script wants us to believe. Then we get to the action. There's an ancient brotherhood led by a silver coiffed Samuel L. Jackson who is trying his hardest to both keep the jumpers at bay, and go 2 minutes without saying "motherfucker." And David is just trying to woo an old schoolmate, who by the way, has been under the impression that David's been dead for the past 8 years, along with anyone else who ever knew him. The film quickly devolves into an exercise in flashy special effects and even flashier location shooting. Which I will give to director Doug Liman as being pretty cool.
I always kick it off with the acting, so here goes. Samuel L. Jackson is good, as usual. When is he not. I have a theory, that he is the black Christopher Walken. The movie could be absolute shit, but he'll still be "OK" in it. As is mostly the case with this one. He seems to walk through the role as if it's just a paycheck to him, which is entirely likely. Diane Lane has become less hit and more miss recently, and this is no exception. And of course the two leads. Christensen. And Rachel Bilson. The only person I can think of with the exact same lack of charisma as Christensen. Put the two together and you get... well.. Jumper.
What happened to David Goyer? He did Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, all of the Blade movies, and coming up he's got The Flash and Magneto. So promising was his writing career. Then he turns out this P.O.S. that is an hour and a half of plot holes and missed opportunities. And that could be due to Liman not able to work the sci-fi angle. But come on. There could have been great fight scenes. Don't get me wrong, the ones they had were fantastic. But... there could have been more.
There could have been more exploration into the "Jumpers" vs. "Paladins" (shadowy Sam Jackson organization) struggle. Especially considering how HUGE of a plot point it really is. There could have been more exploration into the whole David being dead thing. I mean... they watch him fall through the ice at the age of 14-ish, he teleports out, never to be seen again. He comes back 8 years later and people treat him as if he just got home from college. What the hell? It makes little to no sense.
The whole thing should have been longer. Should have been more in depth. Should have been better.
Though I will give them credit for doing some fantastic special effects work. The teleporting was magnificent, and they kept the practical science behind it pretty accurate. The replacement of the displaced matter when a Jumper leaves an area was accurate. The comparable velocity law was accurate. Basically it was as scientifically accurate as you would expect a sci-fi flick about young adults who can create tiny black holes at will and travel anywhere in the world through them, to be.
And as Liman demonstrated in The Bourne Identity, he has a knack for doing impressive location shooting. He gets some damn fine shots of Rome, Giza, London, Tokyo and Prague. But I could watch the Travel Channel, and get the same thing. Only no Hayden Christensen. So it's better.
2 Stars go to this, but only because I'm feeling generous on President's day, and I enjoyed the special effects. If we get a competent filmmaker behind the wheel, who knows what those effects can do.
Later Brodie Fanns!
-Brodie Mann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
