Casino Royale - A
I must preface this review with the confession that I'm not a die-hard Bond fan. It's hard to know where to place Bond films for me: I love spy films, but Bond is more of a superhero than a spy. I love a good action movie, and I'm willing to forego some realism in the interest of kicking tail and saving the girl, but Bond action always seems fettered by the gimmicks and one-liners that have now been satirized by films like Austin Powers. These "cheesy" elements are a part of the "cult" status of Bond films, but I've already the fanboy section of my brain to more compelling film series' like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but I've always enjoyed old Bond films as a good popcorn diverstion. Notice I said good Bond films, as in everything up until Sean Connery quit. Roger Moore - no, Pierce Brosnan - no, miscellaneous no-name Bonds attempting to get back to get back to Ian Fleming's original stony character - closer but still no. The main draw of Bond films for me was the classy character of James Bond. The unrealism I enjoy about Bond films is that no one is, in reality, as cool, slick and perfect as he. His gadgets and state-of-the-art weapons should feel more like attachments of his personality rather than the movie's centerpieces. In short, Bond should kick tail, not his hi-tech cars, personalized guns and micro-tracers. This is why I hated Moore's and Brosnan's inability to pull off classy. Aside from being completely anti-physical, relying on their gadgets and trickery, they just didn't fit their tuxes well. They looked, not to sound overly British, common. I was ready to see a new Bond who would revive Connery's dark-eyed cool. The choice of Daniel Craig to fill the role was controversial (a blonde Bond was not acceptable for die-hards, at least until the film came out), but it turned out to be just what the Doctor No ordered.
Craig is fantastic. His severe face you've all seen on the movie posters is exactly the kind of Bond you're going to get. He kills quickly and without ceremony, unless it's necessary. Even his one-liners are bada**. His severity is complimented by his tremendous ego, which is a central plot theme. He is a collected, suave Bond with a dark heart and a penchant for harm and destruction. Craig is the primary reason this movie works and the rest of the film kind of gets out of the way for him to work his mojo, but there are other things going for it. The bad guy, Le Chiffre, played by Mads Mikkelson, Denmark's premiere actor, is supremely creepy, and the love interest, played by the dusky Eva Green, is more than just a bombshell hanging on his arm. The love story in the movie is what most people thought was lame, but I believed it completely. Maybe I just like love stories, but Vesper's offer of a way out of the dangerous and dark world of espionage hooked me completely. The film does romanticize Bond's world to a point with fantastic action scenes and the typical womanizing, but Campbell is careful to show the pricetag attached to his life with a couple of particularly excruciating scenes of undesirable violence, one a torture scene, the other a gang-fight with some Ugandan assassins (one wielding a nasty machete). On the whole I found Bond's world well-balanced, though still not realistic. Director Martin Campbell wisely stays away from giving Bond too many gadgets, though one or two help him out at times; Bond's main weapon is his own iron will. In short a cool plot, refreshing resurgance of class and minimal gimmicks make room for a new era of Bond, i.e. Daniel Craig whose performance is so cool it's simply smashing.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Jesus Camp
The new genre of opinionated documentaries comes with benefits as well as dangers. The documentary film is a powerful medium that can produce a profound effect on viewers who appear to be confronted with simply objective footage. The viewer must be informed that these documentaries are opinions and as such, all of the included footage and editing works toward a message that the director wants to communicate. The goal is not necessarily to paint an accurate picture of the subject at hand. With that mindset one can appropriately watch Jesus Camp, a disturbing film about a children’s summer camp in South Dakota dedicated to training the Christian children of today for the political wars of tomorrow. Although it’s debatable as to whether or not the movie gives evangelicals fair treatment, it does raise important questions about the place of Christianity in America.
Directors Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing’s purpose is to portray evangelical Christianity as a right-wing ideology that is gaining influence in government, and raising a generation of children that will continue to fight for political influence. The film focuses on Lakewood Bible Camp in South Dakota, a children’s camp led by Becky Fischer, pastor of Christ Triumphant Church in Missouri. She gets most of the camera time, preaching fiery sermons, raising her hands, and calling for kids to pray in tongues. She is the villain of Jesus Camp. All of her footage implies a manipulative, fundamentalist bent on influencing children to be leaders of some crusade to retake America for Christ. Fischer sums up the directors’ intent nicely when she says that this young generation of evangelicals should “make liberals shake in their boots.” This is exactly what Jesus Camp hopes to accomplish through a series of soundtrack-heavy montages in which children seem to be emotionally exploited into crying and chanting for the cause of the religious right.
The weakness of Jesus Camp is that these montages are all there is. It is a documentary that doesn’t really document anything. The worship service scenes are disturbing enough, but there is no purpose to them other than making evangelicals appear crazy. From all of the gasps and sighs of disgust I heard in the theater, the directors’ scare tactics work pretty well, but there is no deeper exploration into the character of these “crazy Christians”, why they believe what they do, and why they are so intent on making others believe the same way.
Watching Jesus Camp as a Christian is a conflicting experience that will likely offend many, but hopefully raise some important questions about the Church in America. As far as the directors are concerned, Becky Fischer speaks for all American evangelicals when it is obvious that her church is on an extreme end of the spectrum. Grady and Ewing did not pick an “average” church to document, but by choosing an extreme, the film paints a plausible picture of what misguided Christianity can become. This film does not simply attack our images (such as comedies like Saved! or Dogma) but delves deeper into our conception of what Christianity is. Fischer’s overzealous personality and fiery preaching style makes her warlike theology seem insane, but why not pursue political representation for Christians? What is so wrong with raising a generation of Christian children by any means necessary? Our mission is “for Christ and his Kingdom”, so why not make America his kingdom? Fischer’s message is clear in one of her sermons when she says “Someone needs to fix this sick ol’ world…so let’s pick up our tools and fix it!” Grady and Ewing wish to point out that Christians “fixing the world” looks frighteningly similar to the bloody crusades of the past ideological regimes whose intent was to make the world a better place. The troubling thing is that they might be right. Jesus Camp is an opportunity for we as Christians to evaluate our mission on earth. What was Jesus’ intent for the Christian life? Was it to “make disciples of all nations by whatever means necessary?” Becky Fischer seems to think that it is. Though it may not be a well-balanced film, Jesus Camp’s message could be important for Christians to consider.
The new genre of opinionated documentaries comes with benefits as well as dangers. The documentary film is a powerful medium that can produce a profound effect on viewers who appear to be confronted with simply objective footage. The viewer must be informed that these documentaries are opinions and as such, all of the included footage and editing works toward a message that the director wants to communicate. The goal is not necessarily to paint an accurate picture of the subject at hand. With that mindset one can appropriately watch Jesus Camp, a disturbing film about a children’s summer camp in South Dakota dedicated to training the Christian children of today for the political wars of tomorrow. Although it’s debatable as to whether or not the movie gives evangelicals fair treatment, it does raise important questions about the place of Christianity in America.
Directors Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing’s purpose is to portray evangelical Christianity as a right-wing ideology that is gaining influence in government, and raising a generation of children that will continue to fight for political influence. The film focuses on Lakewood Bible Camp in South Dakota, a children’s camp led by Becky Fischer, pastor of Christ Triumphant Church in Missouri. She gets most of the camera time, preaching fiery sermons, raising her hands, and calling for kids to pray in tongues. She is the villain of Jesus Camp. All of her footage implies a manipulative, fundamentalist bent on influencing children to be leaders of some crusade to retake America for Christ. Fischer sums up the directors’ intent nicely when she says that this young generation of evangelicals should “make liberals shake in their boots.” This is exactly what Jesus Camp hopes to accomplish through a series of soundtrack-heavy montages in which children seem to be emotionally exploited into crying and chanting for the cause of the religious right.
The weakness of Jesus Camp is that these montages are all there is. It is a documentary that doesn’t really document anything. The worship service scenes are disturbing enough, but there is no purpose to them other than making evangelicals appear crazy. From all of the gasps and sighs of disgust I heard in the theater, the directors’ scare tactics work pretty well, but there is no deeper exploration into the character of these “crazy Christians”, why they believe what they do, and why they are so intent on making others believe the same way.
Watching Jesus Camp as a Christian is a conflicting experience that will likely offend many, but hopefully raise some important questions about the Church in America. As far as the directors are concerned, Becky Fischer speaks for all American evangelicals when it is obvious that her church is on an extreme end of the spectrum. Grady and Ewing did not pick an “average” church to document, but by choosing an extreme, the film paints a plausible picture of what misguided Christianity can become. This film does not simply attack our images (such as comedies like Saved! or Dogma) but delves deeper into our conception of what Christianity is. Fischer’s overzealous personality and fiery preaching style makes her warlike theology seem insane, but why not pursue political representation for Christians? What is so wrong with raising a generation of Christian children by any means necessary? Our mission is “for Christ and his Kingdom”, so why not make America his kingdom? Fischer’s message is clear in one of her sermons when she says “Someone needs to fix this sick ol’ world…so let’s pick up our tools and fix it!” Grady and Ewing wish to point out that Christians “fixing the world” looks frighteningly similar to the bloody crusades of the past ideological regimes whose intent was to make the world a better place. The troubling thing is that they might be right. Jesus Camp is an opportunity for we as Christians to evaluate our mission on earth. What was Jesus’ intent for the Christian life? Was it to “make disciples of all nations by whatever means necessary?” Becky Fischer seems to think that it is. Though it may not be a well-balanced film, Jesus Camp’s message could be important for Christians to consider.
The Black Dahlia
The Black Dahlia is inspired by the true story of the infamous 1947 murder of Elizabeth Short, an aspiring Hollywood actress whose body is mutilated and left in a field. For the LAPD detectives assigned to the case, the murder sparks a series of events resulting in a complicated tale of obsession and betrayal.
The murder itself is the first of the film’s problems. It is supposed to be the emotional center of all of the characters’ conflict, but the viewer is rarely allowed to feel sympathy for the victim. Mia Kirshner delivers a great performance as the tragically insecure Ms. Short whom we see interacting with a faceless casting director on old reels, but those scenes are few and are overshadowed by numerous insensitive shots of her corpse.
The movie’s only highlight is its visual tribute to 1940s style cinema, using layered fade shots and static camera angles to recreate the budding era of Hollywood. There are several impressively directed scenes, one an aerial sweep of a street riot, the other a complicated stage-like shot of a busy Los Angeles intersection. However, the film’s visual strength is offset by its inability to conjure up any feeling in its actors. The acting is fair, but wooden. Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johannsen, Aaron Eckhart and Hillary Swank seem to be trapped by Josh Friedman’s uninteresting script that, although employs the familiar noir jargon, lacks the freshness and pep of a cool detective movie. The characters certainly look their parts, but as afore mentioned, the visuals are all there are.
Usually, a movie’s objectionable content alone will not ruin it for me, but The Black Dahlia’s R-rated material factored in heavily to my displeasure with the film. I do not unilaterally condemn all strong content in movies because it is often used to develop plot elements, pack a thematic punch or be stylistically appropriate. Sadly, The Black Dahlia has nothing significant to contribute to any of these areas, so it all comes across as excess. The countless sex scenes, including an unedited recreation of a lesbian porn film were more than enough to convince me that, thespian considerations aside, this is nothing beyond gratuitous smut. What makes the violence so disturbing is not necessarily how much is shown, but rather the gleeful treatment it gets. The torturous murder scene is unexpectedly colorful, more like a Carrie than The Untouchables. Someone should remind Mr. De Palma that he is dealing (albeit loosely) with an actual murder victim, and that the unsympathetic violence comes off as disrespectful to the deceased. Save your brain some inerasable images and steer clear of this mindless mess of cheap shock value.
Brian De Palma has pieced together a confusing attempt at film noir permeated with unclear twists and dull characters. The many plot elements are as uninteresting as they are emotionless, and only the film’s excessive violence and sex keep it from being totally forgettable.
The Black Dahlia is inspired by the true story of the infamous 1947 murder of Elizabeth Short, an aspiring Hollywood actress whose body is mutilated and left in a field. For the LAPD detectives assigned to the case, the murder sparks a series of events resulting in a complicated tale of obsession and betrayal.
The murder itself is the first of the film’s problems. It is supposed to be the emotional center of all of the characters’ conflict, but the viewer is rarely allowed to feel sympathy for the victim. Mia Kirshner delivers a great performance as the tragically insecure Ms. Short whom we see interacting with a faceless casting director on old reels, but those scenes are few and are overshadowed by numerous insensitive shots of her corpse.
The movie’s only highlight is its visual tribute to 1940s style cinema, using layered fade shots and static camera angles to recreate the budding era of Hollywood. There are several impressively directed scenes, one an aerial sweep of a street riot, the other a complicated stage-like shot of a busy Los Angeles intersection. However, the film’s visual strength is offset by its inability to conjure up any feeling in its actors. The acting is fair, but wooden. Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johannsen, Aaron Eckhart and Hillary Swank seem to be trapped by Josh Friedman’s uninteresting script that, although employs the familiar noir jargon, lacks the freshness and pep of a cool detective movie. The characters certainly look their parts, but as afore mentioned, the visuals are all there are.
Usually, a movie’s objectionable content alone will not ruin it for me, but The Black Dahlia’s R-rated material factored in heavily to my displeasure with the film. I do not unilaterally condemn all strong content in movies because it is often used to develop plot elements, pack a thematic punch or be stylistically appropriate. Sadly, The Black Dahlia has nothing significant to contribute to any of these areas, so it all comes across as excess. The countless sex scenes, including an unedited recreation of a lesbian porn film were more than enough to convince me that, thespian considerations aside, this is nothing beyond gratuitous smut. What makes the violence so disturbing is not necessarily how much is shown, but rather the gleeful treatment it gets. The torturous murder scene is unexpectedly colorful, more like a Carrie than The Untouchables. Someone should remind Mr. De Palma that he is dealing (albeit loosely) with an actual murder victim, and that the unsympathetic violence comes off as disrespectful to the deceased. Save your brain some inerasable images and steer clear of this mindless mess of cheap shock value.
Brian De Palma has pieced together a confusing attempt at film noir permeated with unclear twists and dull characters. The many plot elements are as uninteresting as they are emotionless, and only the film’s excessive violence and sex keep it from being totally forgettable.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Invincible
Invincible starring Mark Wahlberg is the next installment in a long series of inspirational sports movies. Fans of Rudy and Remember the Titans will enjoy the true story of Vince Papale, a Philadelphia bartender who in 1976, became the NFL’s oldest rookie at age 30. Those who are not dazzled by the sports-film formula will be in for a boring 2 hours of predictability. It’s not that I dislike films that are meant to be positive and inspirational, but it seems that every single one falls into the same rut. All of these movies suffer from an overabundance of soundtrack, predictable plot twists and lots of slow motion, but I’ll set those complaints aside and focus on the film itself and not the genre.
Invincible is based on a true story, but the movie visually defies reality. One of the major themes in the film is supposed to be how Eagles football is the hope of a downtrodden Philadelphia, but director Ericson Core’s apparent tendency to shoot everything on sound stages strips the story of a lot of potential soul. With the exception of the opening credits montage and a Rocky-esque “running around the city” scene there wasn’t any effort to include Philly herself into the cast of characters. Even the stadium scenes lacked something experiential. There were a couple of cool computer generated scenes that swooped in over Veterans Stadium, but the game scenes failed to recreate the overwhelming excitement of a pro football game. There actually isn’t much visual style at all, and much of the character development takes place in the form of montage.
On a more positive note, Mark Wahlberg and Greg Kinnear turn in likable performances as the film’s two parallel heroes. My favorite part of the movie was the dynamic between Wahlberg and Kinnear who are portrayed as similar characters. Vermeil and Papale are both unlikely rookies, one a young coach, the other an old athlete. The exchange between Papale and Vermeil sums it up nicely, Vermeil: “mind me asking how old you are?” Papale: “if you don’t mind me asking how old you are, coach”. The rest of the supporting cast is significantly less interesting. Papale’s friends, a horde of beer-drinking football-loving Joes all tend to run together rather than develop individual personalities and Elizabeth Banks explores new levels of boring as an all-too-typical love interest. The positive relationship between Vince and his father, however, was a refreshing diversion. Also, being a Cowboys fan I was treated to a nicely shot scene on-location at Texas Stadium in which the ‘Boys beat the stuffing out of the Eagles in the first game of the season.
All in all, Invincible is a mediocre film that doesn’t bring anything new to the table; however it does deliver a solid story that is respectable for its positive message and relative lack of smut. If you enjoy predictable inspirational stories, then go see Invincible and prepare to be pleasantly unsurprised.
Invincible starring Mark Wahlberg is the next installment in a long series of inspirational sports movies. Fans of Rudy and Remember the Titans will enjoy the true story of Vince Papale, a Philadelphia bartender who in 1976, became the NFL’s oldest rookie at age 30. Those who are not dazzled by the sports-film formula will be in for a boring 2 hours of predictability. It’s not that I dislike films that are meant to be positive and inspirational, but it seems that every single one falls into the same rut. All of these movies suffer from an overabundance of soundtrack, predictable plot twists and lots of slow motion, but I’ll set those complaints aside and focus on the film itself and not the genre.
Invincible is based on a true story, but the movie visually defies reality. One of the major themes in the film is supposed to be how Eagles football is the hope of a downtrodden Philadelphia, but director Ericson Core’s apparent tendency to shoot everything on sound stages strips the story of a lot of potential soul. With the exception of the opening credits montage and a Rocky-esque “running around the city” scene there wasn’t any effort to include Philly herself into the cast of characters. Even the stadium scenes lacked something experiential. There were a couple of cool computer generated scenes that swooped in over Veterans Stadium, but the game scenes failed to recreate the overwhelming excitement of a pro football game. There actually isn’t much visual style at all, and much of the character development takes place in the form of montage.
On a more positive note, Mark Wahlberg and Greg Kinnear turn in likable performances as the film’s two parallel heroes. My favorite part of the movie was the dynamic between Wahlberg and Kinnear who are portrayed as similar characters. Vermeil and Papale are both unlikely rookies, one a young coach, the other an old athlete. The exchange between Papale and Vermeil sums it up nicely, Vermeil: “mind me asking how old you are?” Papale: “if you don’t mind me asking how old you are, coach”. The rest of the supporting cast is significantly less interesting. Papale’s friends, a horde of beer-drinking football-loving Joes all tend to run together rather than develop individual personalities and Elizabeth Banks explores new levels of boring as an all-too-typical love interest. The positive relationship between Vince and his father, however, was a refreshing diversion. Also, being a Cowboys fan I was treated to a nicely shot scene on-location at Texas Stadium in which the ‘Boys beat the stuffing out of the Eagles in the first game of the season.
All in all, Invincible is a mediocre film that doesn’t bring anything new to the table; however it does deliver a solid story that is respectable for its positive message and relative lack of smut. If you enjoy predictable inspirational stories, then go see Invincible and prepare to be pleasantly unsurprised.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
That's the summer lineup! I'll probably continue to write reviews as the films come, but it's not guaranteed what I'll see. I leave for school bright and early tomorrow. Summer '06 has been decent with a few surprises (the perfection of "Prada" and the lameness of "Lady") To all (like 5) of my loyal readers, it's been a pleasure and be sure to check regularly next summer. When you've got a date and you're not sure what film to go to, just remember, Wilgus's Movie Reviews has your ticket in mind!
Sunday, August 06, 2006
The Devil Wears Prada
B+
It doesn't matter who you are, you're probably going to enjoy the Devil Wears Prada. I'm not familiar with the novel (obviously, I'd rather read cool stuff like Orson Scott Card), but however good it was it managed to spark one of the most surprisingly good movies this year.
There are many small contributions to the overall pleasantness of this movie, but to sum up the main reason to goo see it in three words: Meryl freakin' Streep. She is honestly one of the greatest actresses ever to go into the business. She is always perfect as absolutely whatever. I became a newfound fan of hers after seeing "A Prarie Home Companion", and this movie only bolstered my faith in her genius. She is marvellous in this movie as a delicious picture of corporate, self serving evil. She plays Miranda Priestly, the editor-in-chief of Runway, the country's most prestigious fashion magazine. She is always beautifully in character, her soft yet bitter voice, piercing stare, and pretentious gait. She is the heart and soul of this movie around which all the other elements rotate.
The story is of Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) who has just landed a career boosting job in the offices of Runway Magazine under Miranda Priestly (Streep) the ultimate boss from hell whose demanding schedule and constant self-centerdness drive Andy's life into a collision course with a life lesson! (I'm being cynical, I actually liked the message.)
Fortunately, the filming, supporting roles, writing and directing are appropriate and refreshingly subtle. A chick flick like this is always in danger of going over-the-top with crazy antics and insane situations that are as unbelievable as they are unfunny. Fortunately for us, Prada keeps a good balance between the absurd and the realistic, making the situations Miranda puts Andy in believably ridiculous and thus, fun to watch. The supporting cast also bring great talent to the table. Stanley Tucci in particular as an obviously gay but not overplayed fashion guy working for Runway who ends up being the sort of mentor guy to Andy. Emily Blunt is also funny as the jerk "I-know-everything-and-you-don't" girl. Tucci is the most honorable mention with a collected performance that is entirely believable and even touching at some points.
Although this movie generally stays away from the pitfalls of the "chick flick" genre there are a few nitpicks that I have to mention. It must be stated that it is formulaic. The plot is similar to movies like "Mean Girls" and you won't have trouble guessing how it ends up, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable to watch. Also, the movie starts out with the beautiful Anne Hathaway going into the Runway offices for the first time and we're supposed to believe she's kind of plain, when she's not. It's the classic "put-the-hot-girl-in-glasses-and-bad-hair" trick, just without the glasses or bad hair. They put her in a *gasp* sweater, which is supposed to be a huge fashion no-no and grounds for passing her of as hopelessly unnatractive. Maybe they're just commenting on the absurd exclusivity of the fashion world though, and she does look slightly hotter after she starts wearing the fashionable stuff. The other thing is that her home life is not unnatractive either. Her boyfriend and friends are part of a young-upcoming artsy kind of world that is cool in its own way and doesn't contrast enough with the high-class fashion world. They live in a loft in downtown NYC, they're not exactly scrounging. Plus her friends and boyfriend aren't very round characters. The final thing is more of a cosmic complaint, but I have to say it. Would it hurt the story too much if the guy Anne Hathaway lives with was her HUSBAND? No, absolutely not. There's this sort of new generation floaty moral construct which says "if you live with a guy, you shouldn't mess around with other guys" sort of like marriage but without all that sticky commitment and "for better or for worse business." When Andy's fidelity is called into question by a slick journalist she meets at a party, the audience is supposed to go "ooh that's wrong." But I think that living with this other guy in a morally ambiguous relationship in which there is no real love, just sex and common lifestyles, the latter of which being threatened by Andy's new job demands does (not surprisingly) call put their relationship in jeapordy. Their relationship was too thin for me, but I guess I'm old-fashioned.
Despite the complaints this movie is solid. It's a girl movie that all of the major genders will appreciate for its wit, great performances, worthy message and above all: Meryl freakin' Streep.
B+
It doesn't matter who you are, you're probably going to enjoy the Devil Wears Prada. I'm not familiar with the novel (obviously, I'd rather read cool stuff like Orson Scott Card), but however good it was it managed to spark one of the most surprisingly good movies this year.
There are many small contributions to the overall pleasantness of this movie, but to sum up the main reason to goo see it in three words: Meryl freakin' Streep. She is honestly one of the greatest actresses ever to go into the business. She is always perfect as absolutely whatever. I became a newfound fan of hers after seeing "A Prarie Home Companion", and this movie only bolstered my faith in her genius. She is marvellous in this movie as a delicious picture of corporate, self serving evil. She plays Miranda Priestly, the editor-in-chief of Runway, the country's most prestigious fashion magazine. She is always beautifully in character, her soft yet bitter voice, piercing stare, and pretentious gait. She is the heart and soul of this movie around which all the other elements rotate.
The story is of Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) who has just landed a career boosting job in the offices of Runway Magazine under Miranda Priestly (Streep) the ultimate boss from hell whose demanding schedule and constant self-centerdness drive Andy's life into a collision course with a life lesson! (I'm being cynical, I actually liked the message.)
Fortunately, the filming, supporting roles, writing and directing are appropriate and refreshingly subtle. A chick flick like this is always in danger of going over-the-top with crazy antics and insane situations that are as unbelievable as they are unfunny. Fortunately for us, Prada keeps a good balance between the absurd and the realistic, making the situations Miranda puts Andy in believably ridiculous and thus, fun to watch. The supporting cast also bring great talent to the table. Stanley Tucci in particular as an obviously gay but not overplayed fashion guy working for Runway who ends up being the sort of mentor guy to Andy. Emily Blunt is also funny as the jerk "I-know-everything-and-you-don't" girl. Tucci is the most honorable mention with a collected performance that is entirely believable and even touching at some points.
Although this movie generally stays away from the pitfalls of the "chick flick" genre there are a few nitpicks that I have to mention. It must be stated that it is formulaic. The plot is similar to movies like "Mean Girls" and you won't have trouble guessing how it ends up, but that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable to watch. Also, the movie starts out with the beautiful Anne Hathaway going into the Runway offices for the first time and we're supposed to believe she's kind of plain, when she's not. It's the classic "put-the-hot-girl-in-glasses-and-bad-hair" trick, just without the glasses or bad hair. They put her in a *gasp* sweater, which is supposed to be a huge fashion no-no and grounds for passing her of as hopelessly unnatractive. Maybe they're just commenting on the absurd exclusivity of the fashion world though, and she does look slightly hotter after she starts wearing the fashionable stuff. The other thing is that her home life is not unnatractive either. Her boyfriend and friends are part of a young-upcoming artsy kind of world that is cool in its own way and doesn't contrast enough with the high-class fashion world. They live in a loft in downtown NYC, they're not exactly scrounging. Plus her friends and boyfriend aren't very round characters. The final thing is more of a cosmic complaint, but I have to say it. Would it hurt the story too much if the guy Anne Hathaway lives with was her HUSBAND? No, absolutely not. There's this sort of new generation floaty moral construct which says "if you live with a guy, you shouldn't mess around with other guys" sort of like marriage but without all that sticky commitment and "for better or for worse business." When Andy's fidelity is called into question by a slick journalist she meets at a party, the audience is supposed to go "ooh that's wrong." But I think that living with this other guy in a morally ambiguous relationship in which there is no real love, just sex and common lifestyles, the latter of which being threatened by Andy's new job demands does (not surprisingly) call put their relationship in jeapordy. Their relationship was too thin for me, but I guess I'm old-fashioned.
Despite the complaints this movie is solid. It's a girl movie that all of the major genders will appreciate for its wit, great performances, worthy message and above all: Meryl freakin' Streep.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Lady in the Water
(big sigh) It's very difficult for me to write this review as I am being pulled from so many different directions: I love M. Night Shyamalan, I love stories that explore faith and ordinary people rising to do extraordinary things, I love movies about the supernatural, I hate movies that deny the audience a discovery of the supernatural, I hate clumsy directing and sub-par writing, I hate unneccessary monsters. This movie meets all of these criteria to create a sort of balancing act that leaves me a bit confused. I'll probably need to see it again. The sad thing is, I think I'll be the only one to see it twice.
Here's the plot (I'm not giving anything away, because this is explained in the first five minutes of the movie using cheesy hieroglyphic pictogram thingies). There was once a time when people lived in a magic land uner the sea, people left the sea and became man as we know us today, with problems and wars and such. Now the people who remained in the water (or narfs) come to us on big eagles and provide inspiration to whoever will be their vessel. The narfs are always being hunted by the scrunts, essentially big wolves with grass camo, for no explained reason except the pure evilness of it. The buddhist-like balance of the war between scrunts and narfs is maintained by the Tarturic, three monkey-looking things also complete with grass camo. They uphold rules that the scrunts and narfs must follow.
(Deep breath) So, one particular narf comes to Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) the superintendant of a Philadelphia apartment complex. And he must help her return to her world. All of the characters discover that they are a part of a bedtime story, and that they must each use their individual talents and skills to help engineer a happy ending.
Reading a movie's plot on paper is usually not an accurate experience. However, in this case, it pretty much is because Lady in the Water is almost entirely explanatory. The whole plot is one long explanation of "how things work" and there is very little style to add legitemacy to such an involved plot. This is my main complaint and I will come back to it later in detail. But first, some nice words:
Lady in the Water has some promising elements. Ever-solid Paul Giamatti delivers an excellent performance as the stuttering superintendant with a heart of gold. Bryce Dallas Howard is again dreamily beautiful as the leading lady. The rest of the cast (including Shyamalan himself) does a fair job of acting their parts. Bob Balaban is well-cast as a cynical movie critic. His incorporation into the plot is an obvious statement about the way Shyamalan must feel about such people (more on him later). The photography is really good thanks to Shyamalan's own visual flair and cinematographer Christopher Doyle (who rules. His other credits include visual masterpieces such as In the Mood for Love and Hero). The plot (while being the root of all of the film's problems) is certainly original. The plot began as a bedtime story that Shyamalan told his children, but unfortunately as evidenced in movies like The Polar Express the wonder of children's stories don't always translate to film very well.
Thematically, the film is fascinating. As a Christian, I love any filmmaker willing to explore the hugely important elements of faith, the longing for the supernatural, and ultimately, God. Lady in the Water is a largely symbolic film that deals quite intentionally with faith, mortality, and the importance of being united in faith. Shyamalan (not a Christian) is a better vessel of spiritual truth than many preachers I've heard, and his themes are not to be ignored. This film still maintains Shyamalan's place in my head as one of the top people I'd like to meet. There are several beautiful scenes in the movie that touched me on a deeper level than my desire to be entertained. Bob Balaban's character is a wonderfully accurate representation of the psyche of modernity, and many of the situations the characters find themselves in parallel my own struggles with faith in my own life. Wonderful ideas, it's too bad that the execution of these thoughts from a film perspective are in the end, clumsy and imbalanced.
Here's a general movie rule that I have yet to be proven wrong by: any plot, no matter how simple or complex can be believable if the director devotes time and creativity to the presentation of it. In the case of the supernatural world/ordinary world collision plot, an element of DISCOVERY is absolutely essential. Movies like this need a couple of unexplained "what the #*&@?" scenes to draw the audience into the plot. The Matrix is a classic example. The movie has a complicated plot that needs a lengthy explanation. However, the first half of that movie is left entirely unexplained, allowing the audience to discover the truth along with the main character. Mystery is a huge factor in a fantasy/sci-fi movie's believability. Because these movies are completely unbelievable, you need a character in the movie who is (like you) saying "I can't believe this is happening". Shyamalan has done this impeccably in the past with all of his other movies, but in this movie, he neglects this story element altogether. It should be said that Lady in the Water is not a story about discovery, it is a story about what to do after discovery has occured. One could contrast this movie with one of Shyamalan's own past films, Unbreakable, a story entirely about the discovery of something supernatural that ends with the acceptance of it. In a way Lady in the Water picks up right where Unbreakable left off. The characters bypass all disbelief and go straight to the "what do we do about it" phase.
It is hard to criticize Shyamalan, because he does exactly what he wants to do with a movie without letting marketing or outside influence get involved. His movies turn out exactly the way he wants them to. Unfortunately, his intention here is not at all compelling. He explains away at things best shrouded in mystery and leaves no explanation to more important questions such as "grassmonkeys?!?! what the...?" If you've seen the movie you know what I mean, otherwise I'll leave you to wonder. I hope this review doesn't turn potential viewers away, as I'll need several other opinions to organize my own conflicted thoughts on this film.
(big sigh) It's very difficult for me to write this review as I am being pulled from so many different directions: I love M. Night Shyamalan, I love stories that explore faith and ordinary people rising to do extraordinary things, I love movies about the supernatural, I hate movies that deny the audience a discovery of the supernatural, I hate clumsy directing and sub-par writing, I hate unneccessary monsters. This movie meets all of these criteria to create a sort of balancing act that leaves me a bit confused. I'll probably need to see it again. The sad thing is, I think I'll be the only one to see it twice.
Here's the plot (I'm not giving anything away, because this is explained in the first five minutes of the movie using cheesy hieroglyphic pictogram thingies). There was once a time when people lived in a magic land uner the sea, people left the sea and became man as we know us today, with problems and wars and such. Now the people who remained in the water (or narfs) come to us on big eagles and provide inspiration to whoever will be their vessel. The narfs are always being hunted by the scrunts, essentially big wolves with grass camo, for no explained reason except the pure evilness of it. The buddhist-like balance of the war between scrunts and narfs is maintained by the Tarturic, three monkey-looking things also complete with grass camo. They uphold rules that the scrunts and narfs must follow.
(Deep breath) So, one particular narf comes to Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti) the superintendant of a Philadelphia apartment complex. And he must help her return to her world. All of the characters discover that they are a part of a bedtime story, and that they must each use their individual talents and skills to help engineer a happy ending.
Reading a movie's plot on paper is usually not an accurate experience. However, in this case, it pretty much is because Lady in the Water is almost entirely explanatory. The whole plot is one long explanation of "how things work" and there is very little style to add legitemacy to such an involved plot. This is my main complaint and I will come back to it later in detail. But first, some nice words:
Lady in the Water has some promising elements. Ever-solid Paul Giamatti delivers an excellent performance as the stuttering superintendant with a heart of gold. Bryce Dallas Howard is again dreamily beautiful as the leading lady. The rest of the cast (including Shyamalan himself) does a fair job of acting their parts. Bob Balaban is well-cast as a cynical movie critic. His incorporation into the plot is an obvious statement about the way Shyamalan must feel about such people (more on him later). The photography is really good thanks to Shyamalan's own visual flair and cinematographer Christopher Doyle (who rules. His other credits include visual masterpieces such as In the Mood for Love and Hero). The plot (while being the root of all of the film's problems) is certainly original. The plot began as a bedtime story that Shyamalan told his children, but unfortunately as evidenced in movies like The Polar Express the wonder of children's stories don't always translate to film very well.
Thematically, the film is fascinating. As a Christian, I love any filmmaker willing to explore the hugely important elements of faith, the longing for the supernatural, and ultimately, God. Lady in the Water is a largely symbolic film that deals quite intentionally with faith, mortality, and the importance of being united in faith. Shyamalan (not a Christian) is a better vessel of spiritual truth than many preachers I've heard, and his themes are not to be ignored. This film still maintains Shyamalan's place in my head as one of the top people I'd like to meet. There are several beautiful scenes in the movie that touched me on a deeper level than my desire to be entertained. Bob Balaban's character is a wonderfully accurate representation of the psyche of modernity, and many of the situations the characters find themselves in parallel my own struggles with faith in my own life. Wonderful ideas, it's too bad that the execution of these thoughts from a film perspective are in the end, clumsy and imbalanced.
Here's a general movie rule that I have yet to be proven wrong by: any plot, no matter how simple or complex can be believable if the director devotes time and creativity to the presentation of it. In the case of the supernatural world/ordinary world collision plot, an element of DISCOVERY is absolutely essential. Movies like this need a couple of unexplained "what the #*&@?" scenes to draw the audience into the plot. The Matrix is a classic example. The movie has a complicated plot that needs a lengthy explanation. However, the first half of that movie is left entirely unexplained, allowing the audience to discover the truth along with the main character. Mystery is a huge factor in a fantasy/sci-fi movie's believability. Because these movies are completely unbelievable, you need a character in the movie who is (like you) saying "I can't believe this is happening". Shyamalan has done this impeccably in the past with all of his other movies, but in this movie, he neglects this story element altogether. It should be said that Lady in the Water is not a story about discovery, it is a story about what to do after discovery has occured. One could contrast this movie with one of Shyamalan's own past films, Unbreakable, a story entirely about the discovery of something supernatural that ends with the acceptance of it. In a way Lady in the Water picks up right where Unbreakable left off. The characters bypass all disbelief and go straight to the "what do we do about it" phase.
It is hard to criticize Shyamalan, because he does exactly what he wants to do with a movie without letting marketing or outside influence get involved. His movies turn out exactly the way he wants them to. Unfortunately, his intention here is not at all compelling. He explains away at things best shrouded in mystery and leaves no explanation to more important questions such as "grassmonkeys?!?! what the...?" If you've seen the movie you know what I mean, otherwise I'll leave you to wonder. I hope this review doesn't turn potential viewers away, as I'll need several other opinions to organize my own conflicted thoughts on this film.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
A Scanner Darkly - One head trip you might be glad you took - B+
Richard Linklater's approach to Phillip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly succeeds more in its style than in its script. Let's face it, the movie would not have been very interesting if it wasn't for the animated rotoscoping. The problem of forming an opinion on this movie is the choice between treating the animation as either mere spectacle or an integral part of the film. We live in a day and age where special effects can do much to enhance a film, but what Linklater has done is use stylistic effects to better draw the audience into the experience of the characters. Because this is a movie about drug addiction this is not always pleasant, but it is important to appreciate Linklater's execution of a unique vision for storytelling.
The plot isn't too difficult to follow. It's not cut-and-dried, but anyone who has muddled through Donnie Darko will be able to handle it. Set in a near-future world where 20% of the country is addicted to a deadly drug, it's the story of an undercover cop/drug addict whose identity (hidden by a totally cool "scramble suit") is unkown to even his fellow agents. Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is assigned to spy on his junkie friends and his own alter ego via holographic "scanners" (high-tech recording equipment) placed in his home. As Bob sinks deeper into his addiction he develops a split personality which accounts for all sorts of existential confusions along Darkly's trippy plot.
Linklater lightens up the seriousness of the movie with his colorful cast including Woody Harrelson, Robert Downy Jr. and Rory Cochrane as Reeve's druggie housemates. Their paranoid banter is very entertaining and depressing at the same time. Reeves does alright. It's certainly the first time I could ever describe Reeves as animated (<-- joke). Anyway, the supporting cast lightens the mood near the beginning, and then the story gets darker and more intense as things go on. There is some graphic (literally!) sexuality and nudity that lends raw and seedy feeling. Linklater is intentional about making the world of Scanner dirty and unpleasant. The end result is a semi-disturbing movie that is often not fun to watch, despite the animation.
Ahh yes the animation. Anyone who's seen Waking Life will be familiar with the technique. It's a rotoscoping (or "cutting out") technique that allows an animated effect to be applied to the characters. The result is like a moving comic book or a fluid watercolor. The animation is a lot better than in Waking Life, and It's fun to watch for a while. After about forty minutes it becomes sensually draining. The cerebral feeling of disconnectedness plays an important part in the overall effect of the story. Linklater doesn't want to just show you a film about drug addiction, he wants you to feel what it's like. There are a couple of scenes in which the animation works beautifully with the theme, creating an atmosphere of disconnected familiarity. I enjoyed it as a visual metaphor, a representation of the feeling of being a stranger in a world that we should feel at home in, but doesn't.
The themes in Scanner go deeper than "Just Say No". The story explores why people choose drug addiction and how simple law enforcement cannot win a war against drugs. The only inconsistency in the movie seems to be Dick vs. Linklater. Linklater's directing is lighthearted without forefitting thematic depth. Phillip K. Dick's story is dark and cynical. There are points in the movie when the two influences seem to collide. Is this supposed to be comedic or dark? The duality could be intentional, and I personally found it fun at times.
In the end, A Scanner Darkly is worth seeing; if anything it's just pretty to look at, but there is food for thought along with the eye candy, and real people behind the animation.
Richard Linklater's approach to Phillip K. Dick's A Scanner Darkly succeeds more in its style than in its script. Let's face it, the movie would not have been very interesting if it wasn't for the animated rotoscoping. The problem of forming an opinion on this movie is the choice between treating the animation as either mere spectacle or an integral part of the film. We live in a day and age where special effects can do much to enhance a film, but what Linklater has done is use stylistic effects to better draw the audience into the experience of the characters. Because this is a movie about drug addiction this is not always pleasant, but it is important to appreciate Linklater's execution of a unique vision for storytelling.
The plot isn't too difficult to follow. It's not cut-and-dried, but anyone who has muddled through Donnie Darko will be able to handle it. Set in a near-future world where 20% of the country is addicted to a deadly drug, it's the story of an undercover cop/drug addict whose identity (hidden by a totally cool "scramble suit") is unkown to even his fellow agents. Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is assigned to spy on his junkie friends and his own alter ego via holographic "scanners" (high-tech recording equipment) placed in his home. As Bob sinks deeper into his addiction he develops a split personality which accounts for all sorts of existential confusions along Darkly's trippy plot.
Linklater lightens up the seriousness of the movie with his colorful cast including Woody Harrelson, Robert Downy Jr. and Rory Cochrane as Reeve's druggie housemates. Their paranoid banter is very entertaining and depressing at the same time. Reeves does alright. It's certainly the first time I could ever describe Reeves as animated (<-- joke). Anyway, the supporting cast lightens the mood near the beginning, and then the story gets darker and more intense as things go on. There is some graphic (literally!) sexuality and nudity that lends raw and seedy feeling. Linklater is intentional about making the world of Scanner dirty and unpleasant. The end result is a semi-disturbing movie that is often not fun to watch, despite the animation.
Ahh yes the animation. Anyone who's seen Waking Life will be familiar with the technique. It's a rotoscoping (or "cutting out") technique that allows an animated effect to be applied to the characters. The result is like a moving comic book or a fluid watercolor. The animation is a lot better than in Waking Life, and It's fun to watch for a while. After about forty minutes it becomes sensually draining. The cerebral feeling of disconnectedness plays an important part in the overall effect of the story. Linklater doesn't want to just show you a film about drug addiction, he wants you to feel what it's like. There are a couple of scenes in which the animation works beautifully with the theme, creating an atmosphere of disconnected familiarity. I enjoyed it as a visual metaphor, a representation of the feeling of being a stranger in a world that we should feel at home in, but doesn't.
The themes in Scanner go deeper than "Just Say No". The story explores why people choose drug addiction and how simple law enforcement cannot win a war against drugs. The only inconsistency in the movie seems to be Dick vs. Linklater. Linklater's directing is lighthearted without forefitting thematic depth. Phillip K. Dick's story is dark and cynical. There are points in the movie when the two influences seem to collide. Is this supposed to be comedic or dark? The duality could be intentional, and I personally found it fun at times.
In the end, A Scanner Darkly is worth seeing; if anything it's just pretty to look at, but there is food for thought along with the eye candy, and real people behind the animation.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Now it's time for a Wilgus Movie Reviews special issue in which we flash back to movies that should've been good, but royally sucked.
Daredevil
Let me begin by saying that I absolutely love Daredevil. His is one of the most imaginative and inventive characters ever to grace the pages of a comic book. Comic artist Frank Miller took the hero to new heights in his famous series of Daredevil and Elektra comics. The story is of one Matthew Murdock, a son of a boxer street kid who loses his sight from an accident involving strange chemicals poured over his eyes in a car accident. The chemicals do, however, enhance every other sense in his body, particularly his hearing so that his reflexes and senses are even better than before. His father, old and down on his luck, falls in with a bad crowd of gangsters working for the notorious crime-lord, the Kingpin, and ends up crossing them by winning a match that was supposed to be fixed against him. He is murdered by the Kingpin’s cronies and young Matt swears vengeance, and when he fills out, he dons a dark red suit and mask and goes by the moniker, Daredevil. By day, however, he is a criminal justice lawyer, taking on only innocent clients. A cool, not overly clichéd hero story such as this deserves a great movie. Unfortunately we didn’t get one.
It is too easy to say that Ben Affleck's sloppy acting ruined the film. To be fair, however, Ben wasn’t the one that ruined the film. It was acclaimed director Mark Steven Johnson. Yes, the one and only. This was his directorial debut although he wrote Grumpy Old Men, Simon Birch and did the story for the wildly successful Jack Frost with Michael Keaton in which the former Batman icon almost dies and is transformed into a disturbing CG rendition of a snowman. Whatever got into his head to take on a superhero film, particularly one as grittily beautiful as Daredevil, is beyond me.
Mr. Johnson begins with a cool element. A dark New York skyline, and a wounded Murdock in costume stumbling into a beautiful Catholic Church building. The tones are dark and gothic, with dark maroon digital grading, really cool. The entire movie, however, ends up being a flashback, which is annoying because there is little tension if you know that at some point the film is going to pick up again where it left off at the beginning. But I was ready to forgive, I was just happy to see Daredevil in his slick dark red action suit clutching his multi-purpose Billy Club, but then we go from the flashback to YET ANOTHER FLASHBACK through which we see Daredevil’s origin. The origin story went pretty much as afore stated. The only weird thing was that in this version, the young Matt never meets Stick, his mysterious and totally cool blind mentor. He just kind of makes himself into a little black belt and uses his all-too-perfect, highly choreographed moves to beat up on neighborhood bullies. This is the first real point in the movie where we catch a glimpse of the true lameness of this movie’s fight scenes. Here Matt does this Matrix move kind of thing where he runs up a wall and flips backwards off of it. This is where our hero, sadly, begins to look like a Neo wannabe. The movie doesn’t really start to suck until later on, though when he surfaces from the second flashback into the first flashback and meets Elektra, an overly sexy femme-fetal heiress, everything a shallow male wants in a girlfriend. Jennifer Garner’s entrance into the film seems to bring with it an overwhelming wave of idiocy with her contrived lines and macho attitude. Also this is where Ben Affleck really starts to go sour on us. His tongue-in-cheek attitude is simply NOT becoming of the Bruce Wayne-esque Matt Murdock.
The film’s first major fight scene is where the silliness begins. Murdock, who upon “seeing” the girl (he actually kind of smells and senses her aura; she could be like 300 pounds for all he knows) tries to get her to tell him her name. She doesn’t want to and he follows her out back to a vacant playground where they (I kid you not) take off their jackets and proceed to go all kung fu on each other for no particular reason IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PLAYGROUND. I present to Mr. Johnson, comic book class 101: Q. how do superheroes keep their secret identity? A. They blend in with the millions of people in the city by pretending to be mild mannered. THEY DO NOT FIGHT IN PLAYGROUNDS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. Only when they change into their tights and latex do they start breaking out the kung-fu. Not here. Certainly not in broad daylight in front of thirty schoolchildren. I kept wondering why they were even fighting in the first place. There is no explanation.
Oh yeah, the villains. Colin Farrel plays Bullseye, an assassin who can turn pretty much anything into a dart or projectile of some sort, and Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin. Duncan actually does a pretty good job and doesn’t make his character look like some gangsta’. Farrel doesn’t do well at all. He fails to make his character interesting or menacing in any way. His character is always a downer to any potential coolness. His lines show just how bad the writing is.
Kingpin: "How do you kill a man without fear?"
Bullseye: "By puttin' the fear in him." Kingpin: "Ummm...okay. Or you could just throw some sharp crap at him and make him bleed to death"
Bullseye: "Yeah, yeah, that'd work, too. Hey check out my brand! Got it when I was pledging at St. Mary's"
ok ok so that's not exactly how the scene went, but given the dialogue, it darn well should've.
Bullseye's costume is really hideous. He’s got a dark Matrix-like jacket and this target shape BRANDED INTO HIS HEAD. No wonder he’s a bad guy, you just can’t be a good guy with that thing in the middle of yer head. They never really explained the gigantic and obviously painful indentions in his forehead. I kind of felt bad for him, really. Police wouldn’t have much trouble identifying him with that big bull’s eye on his noggin (except that he fools them by wearing a TOBOGGAN! How perplexing!). Apparently, Johnson thought that if Bullseye kills every guard or bystander he sees then we’ll be convinced that he’s bad. Oh we get it, Mark. He’s bad. Admittedly this is kind of what Bullseye does in the comics but Mr. Johnson does a remarkable job at making it look goofy.
The real disappointment comes as the story heats up. The action scenes are poor. They look like a stunt show. I could almost see the wires and mats. Daredevil seems to fly between buildings instead of jumping, and things get kind of sketchy. Bullseye kills Elektra’s dad and makes it look like Daredevil did it. She swears vengeance and goes after him while falling in love with his alter ego, Matt Murdock. She is in for a shock and after a fight with daredevil finds out that they are one and the same. She doesn’t have much time to think about it ‘cause that Bullseye guy comes in and kills her (best part of the movie). Anyway, Daredevil and Bullseye battle the hell out of each other all the way into the church building from the beginning in a brilliant display of cheesy Matrix-like stunts and sub-par fighting. My favorite is when Bullseye picks up a dozen shards of glass and hurls them at Daredevil who evades them by doing like two slow motion back flips. Maybe Bullseye just sucks. “Oh, man, he was MOVING, dangit!!” At the end Daredevil does something to Bullseye’s hands which pisses him off ‘cause he won’t be able to throw a dart again, and then he stands arms outstretched like a crucifix and Daredevil kicks him off the building and he falls to his death. Johnson was obviously trying to make Bullseye look like Jesus for some reason, but I don’t understand the symbolism there or any correlation between the Son of God and this lame excuse for a bad guy. Maybe it was Johnson’s weak attempt at hatin’ on some Christians, but it falls flat, looks silly and that’s when I wanted the movie to be over. No. Then Daredevil has to beat the crap out of The Kingpin in an equally lame trying-to-be-stylish fight scene with water everywhere. Then it’s over. Man I was happy to be done with that crap. Johnson, I hope you’re happy. You’ve had your way with one of the Marvel greats and now just leave us alone, please!
Daredevil
Let me begin by saying that I absolutely love Daredevil. His is one of the most imaginative and inventive characters ever to grace the pages of a comic book. Comic artist Frank Miller took the hero to new heights in his famous series of Daredevil and Elektra comics. The story is of one Matthew Murdock, a son of a boxer street kid who loses his sight from an accident involving strange chemicals poured over his eyes in a car accident. The chemicals do, however, enhance every other sense in his body, particularly his hearing so that his reflexes and senses are even better than before. His father, old and down on his luck, falls in with a bad crowd of gangsters working for the notorious crime-lord, the Kingpin, and ends up crossing them by winning a match that was supposed to be fixed against him. He is murdered by the Kingpin’s cronies and young Matt swears vengeance, and when he fills out, he dons a dark red suit and mask and goes by the moniker, Daredevil. By day, however, he is a criminal justice lawyer, taking on only innocent clients. A cool, not overly clichéd hero story such as this deserves a great movie. Unfortunately we didn’t get one.
It is too easy to say that Ben Affleck's sloppy acting ruined the film. To be fair, however, Ben wasn’t the one that ruined the film. It was acclaimed director Mark Steven Johnson. Yes, the one and only. This was his directorial debut although he wrote Grumpy Old Men, Simon Birch and did the story for the wildly successful Jack Frost with Michael Keaton in which the former Batman icon almost dies and is transformed into a disturbing CG rendition of a snowman. Whatever got into his head to take on a superhero film, particularly one as grittily beautiful as Daredevil, is beyond me.
Mr. Johnson begins with a cool element. A dark New York skyline, and a wounded Murdock in costume stumbling into a beautiful Catholic Church building. The tones are dark and gothic, with dark maroon digital grading, really cool. The entire movie, however, ends up being a flashback, which is annoying because there is little tension if you know that at some point the film is going to pick up again where it left off at the beginning. But I was ready to forgive, I was just happy to see Daredevil in his slick dark red action suit clutching his multi-purpose Billy Club, but then we go from the flashback to YET ANOTHER FLASHBACK through which we see Daredevil’s origin. The origin story went pretty much as afore stated. The only weird thing was that in this version, the young Matt never meets Stick, his mysterious and totally cool blind mentor. He just kind of makes himself into a little black belt and uses his all-too-perfect, highly choreographed moves to beat up on neighborhood bullies. This is the first real point in the movie where we catch a glimpse of the true lameness of this movie’s fight scenes. Here Matt does this Matrix move kind of thing where he runs up a wall and flips backwards off of it. This is where our hero, sadly, begins to look like a Neo wannabe. The movie doesn’t really start to suck until later on, though when he surfaces from the second flashback into the first flashback and meets Elektra, an overly sexy femme-fetal heiress, everything a shallow male wants in a girlfriend. Jennifer Garner’s entrance into the film seems to bring with it an overwhelming wave of idiocy with her contrived lines and macho attitude. Also this is where Ben Affleck really starts to go sour on us. His tongue-in-cheek attitude is simply NOT becoming of the Bruce Wayne-esque Matt Murdock.
The film’s first major fight scene is where the silliness begins. Murdock, who upon “seeing” the girl (he actually kind of smells and senses her aura; she could be like 300 pounds for all he knows) tries to get her to tell him her name. She doesn’t want to and he follows her out back to a vacant playground where they (I kid you not) take off their jackets and proceed to go all kung fu on each other for no particular reason IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PLAYGROUND. I present to Mr. Johnson, comic book class 101: Q. how do superheroes keep their secret identity? A. They blend in with the millions of people in the city by pretending to be mild mannered. THEY DO NOT FIGHT IN PLAYGROUNDS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. Only when they change into their tights and latex do they start breaking out the kung-fu. Not here. Certainly not in broad daylight in front of thirty schoolchildren. I kept wondering why they were even fighting in the first place. There is no explanation.
Oh yeah, the villains. Colin Farrel plays Bullseye, an assassin who can turn pretty much anything into a dart or projectile of some sort, and Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin. Duncan actually does a pretty good job and doesn’t make his character look like some gangsta’. Farrel doesn’t do well at all. He fails to make his character interesting or menacing in any way. His character is always a downer to any potential coolness. His lines show just how bad the writing is.
Kingpin: "How do you kill a man without fear?"
Bullseye: "By puttin' the fear in him." Kingpin: "Ummm...okay. Or you could just throw some sharp crap at him and make him bleed to death"
Bullseye: "Yeah, yeah, that'd work, too. Hey check out my brand! Got it when I was pledging at St. Mary's"
ok ok so that's not exactly how the scene went, but given the dialogue, it darn well should've.
Bullseye's costume is really hideous. He’s got a dark Matrix-like jacket and this target shape BRANDED INTO HIS HEAD. No wonder he’s a bad guy, you just can’t be a good guy with that thing in the middle of yer head. They never really explained the gigantic and obviously painful indentions in his forehead. I kind of felt bad for him, really. Police wouldn’t have much trouble identifying him with that big bull’s eye on his noggin (except that he fools them by wearing a TOBOGGAN! How perplexing!). Apparently, Johnson thought that if Bullseye kills every guard or bystander he sees then we’ll be convinced that he’s bad. Oh we get it, Mark. He’s bad. Admittedly this is kind of what Bullseye does in the comics but Mr. Johnson does a remarkable job at making it look goofy.
The real disappointment comes as the story heats up. The action scenes are poor. They look like a stunt show. I could almost see the wires and mats. Daredevil seems to fly between buildings instead of jumping, and things get kind of sketchy. Bullseye kills Elektra’s dad and makes it look like Daredevil did it. She swears vengeance and goes after him while falling in love with his alter ego, Matt Murdock. She is in for a shock and after a fight with daredevil finds out that they are one and the same. She doesn’t have much time to think about it ‘cause that Bullseye guy comes in and kills her (best part of the movie). Anyway, Daredevil and Bullseye battle the hell out of each other all the way into the church building from the beginning in a brilliant display of cheesy Matrix-like stunts and sub-par fighting. My favorite is when Bullseye picks up a dozen shards of glass and hurls them at Daredevil who evades them by doing like two slow motion back flips. Maybe Bullseye just sucks. “Oh, man, he was MOVING, dangit!!” At the end Daredevil does something to Bullseye’s hands which pisses him off ‘cause he won’t be able to throw a dart again, and then he stands arms outstretched like a crucifix and Daredevil kicks him off the building and he falls to his death. Johnson was obviously trying to make Bullseye look like Jesus for some reason, but I don’t understand the symbolism there or any correlation between the Son of God and this lame excuse for a bad guy. Maybe it was Johnson’s weak attempt at hatin’ on some Christians, but it falls flat, looks silly and that’s when I wanted the movie to be over. No. Then Daredevil has to beat the crap out of The Kingpin in an equally lame trying-to-be-stylish fight scene with water everywhere. Then it’s over. Man I was happy to be done with that crap. Johnson, I hope you’re happy. You’ve had your way with one of the Marvel greats and now just leave us alone, please!
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Pirates of the Caribbean 2
Dead Man's Chest B-
As a 5-year old kid, my favorite movie was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and the scene when the giant squid attacks the submarine has long been one of my favorite cinematic sequences. Naturally, I was pretty excited about seeing another massive squid attack a crew of ill-fated seamen, and I was not disappointed. The squid scenes were nothing short of riveting, bringing fresh realism and motion to the iconic images of a mythological beast terrorizing sailors. It was freaking cool, the squid was worth 8 bucks to me. If big squids are worth that much to you too, then you'll love this movie. If you're looking for dull thespian pursuits like "plot" or "acting" then this ain't the ride for you, savvy?
Dead Man's Chest is the Empire Strikes Back of the Pirates saga (a third has already been filmed). For some reason, the film is a good deal darker. The inherent fun of a Pirate movie is not reveled in as much as in the last one. This is more of a dark fantasy epic with heroes and villains and monsters and magic. Johnny Depp is still good as Jack Sparrow, but for some reason, he doesn't seem to want to work it as much. His character is a lot more haunted this time around, and he's definitely a lot more despicable than noble. In the last movie he kind of had this balance between looking out for himself and loyalty to the heroes. In this movie he's all in it for himself which could've been funny, but instead it makes Jack seem selfish and unlikable. His redemption is a plot point at the end, but it seems a bit anticlimactic somehow.
Keira Knightly is same old same old, as trite tough-girl Elizabeth Swann. Boring! Orlando Bloom plays the same dull boy scout hero. Boring! Bill Nighy as a computer generated evil octopus man...freaking awesome! Nighy's Davey Jones is one of the coolest special effects projects ever undertaken. Having already stated my love for tentacled sea creatures, a villian with tentacles for a beard is too cool. Nighy's voice is perfect and you can just see his face under the CG tentacles. Nighy's Jones ends up being just as much fun as Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbosa in the first film. His crew of mutated sea animal sailors are also fun to watch. The only disappointment with these great characters is an anticlimactic entrance. I loved the revelation sequence in the first movie when you find out that the pirates are actually cursed skeleton pirates. There was a good buildup of tension and a great "holy @#*&!" moment as Rush steps into the moonlight and becomes a skeleton. There is none of that in this movie. The mollusk encrusted crew just kind of appear and Bloom fights them off with his typical annoying warrior-kid attitude without a shred of disbelief or surprise that he just got jumped by twenty grotesque supernatural beings with shark heads and lobster pinchers and stuff. Well, whatever, they look cool.
My biggest complaint with Pirates 2 is that it's not really a movie with a beginning and an end. "It's all middle" has been the biggest indictment. While there's no rule against it, this is not a stylistic move befitting of the Erol Flynn-esque throwback that the first Pirates movie was. The franchise has gone the way of Star Wars and The Matrix, lots of characters, lots of special effects, lots of plotlines = no real conclusion, just an appetizer for the next movie. Verbinski has indicated that things will wrap up for good in the next movie, but wouldn't it be smarter to make these movies episodic and not epic? That way you could have more of them, keep the Erol Flynn matinee serial thing going and not be pressed to "wrap up" everything.
All in all, Pirates 2 is a little bizarre. To go into that statement might give away some major plot twists, but if you've seen it, you know what I mean. The plot is winding and sketchy, and kind of leaves you going "so what are they doing?" There is absolutely no conclusion, by the way. It's a bit of a sour ending that leaves our heroes in bad (mostly self-inflicted ) states. Kinda' weird, and the closing scene reveals a shocking revelation that caps all the weirdness. In the end, Pirates 2 is a bloody thrill ride, and that's about it. Even at 2 hrs. 45 min, it never loses steam, just be ready for a not-so-satisfying plot, confusions of loyalty and a weird ending.
Friday, July 07, 2006
SUPERMAN RETURNS! The Best Summer Movie so far!
Bryan Singer has landed with his career in his hand. The man has finally found his niche. After directing two fair but imbalanced X-Men films (which you can't really blame him for, the X-Men themselves being an imbalanced concept), Singer's time has come. His direction of a film about the most iconic character of all time, the one and only Superman, is a brilliant acievement.
Truth be told, the 90s was a hard decade for Supes with the advent of a darker side of pop culture, one that traded tights and a cape for black leather jackets and knives protruding from hands. The popularity of darker heroes like Batman and Wolverine left "brighter" heroes like Spiderman and Superman on the back burner. Superman scripts were thrown around all over the place with names like J.J. Abrams and Josh Hartnett attached to them, each one either heretical (one involved a non-exploded Planet Krypton) or too "updated". Many people saw films like "The Matrix" as Superman for the next generation, that a more complicated world required more complicated heroes leaving such quaint notions of good and evil behind in favor of a hero who blends the two, that a righteous avenger of truth and justice would no longer be necessary.
Singer says "of course we need superman, aren't we crying out for him?"
What Singer has done is make a movie dealing with this very concept. Rather than doing "Superman Begins", Singer's film is a continuation of the Superman story that has the Man of Steel returning to Earth after a 5-year absence in which Superman leaves to find the remains of his home planet. He returns to a world that has moved on. Lois is engaged with a kid, and has just won a Pulitzer prize for an article entitled "why the world doesn't need Superman". His conversations with the now cynical Lois deal directly with the supposed outdatedness of the character of Superman, and in the end show us why the world does need superman, which is the real climax.
The acting is good. Spacey is fun, Bosworth is good, even James Marsden (Cyclops from X-Men) does a decent job as Lois's Fiancee. Brandon Routh brings a wonderful duality as Superman/Clark Kent. He is warm and masterful in the tights; bungling and goofy in the tie, which would help to explain why Lois never figures out the difference. The main achievment is Singer's imagery which soars high above everything else in the film. The special effects are nothing short of fantastic, but the real thing that makes the action scenes take off is the great sense of build they all have. A scene in which Superman makes his returning debut saving Lois and a group of other reporters in a falling airplaine, (finally setting it down in the middle of a baseball field. How perfectly American!) is as compelling as it is exciting. Singer plays heavy on people's reactions of disbelief at the appearance of Superman in their moment of crisis. He perfectly orchestrates the deus ex machina, a "good storytelling" no-no, that just so happens to be the very thing that gets the audience going. Superman freaking invented it. Snagging a guy who has fallen from a building just before he hits the ground. Melting falling glass with his eyeballs just before it cuts people up. The movie is full of moments like these that will leave the cynical rolling their eyes, and the faithful applauding.
I must also state the fact that, on the whole, this is a quiet movie. Singer doesn't push things. Sure there are some harrowing action sequences, but the film maintains a calm mood as the relationship between Superman and Lois is explored as well as the involvment of her 5-year old son. The film is not at all boring, but it is more subdued than superhero films usually are.
In my mind, Singers best achievment is that through his skillful directing, Singer breathes new life into the first and greatest Superhero. In my mind, Superman being the first superhero, should also be the coolest. And by the end of the movie it is definitely hard to deny that Superman is, in fact, cool. Singer has managed to make a movie that proves that Superman is relevant even today without changing his look or attitude. He is still the Man of Steel, complete with blue tights and a red cape, and he's here to stay.
Monday, June 26, 2006
District B13 - B-
In any French movie, so you can expect men to slap each other around a little, but in this cyber-European near-future action flick, people get knocked around pretty hard. District B13 is about two partners who infiltrate District B13, a walled off ghetto in Paris, to recover a stolen nuclear warhead. 2 cool things about this movie: 1. martial arts 2. The movie is crafted as an introduction to Parkour or street running, a frantic "sport" and recent internet craze that has men running all over an urban sprawl like a jungle gym. The two heroes (particularly Leito, played by David Belle) are responsible for the coolest scenes that involve frenetic escapes from the gun-wielding gangsters chasing them. This style of handling a sticky situation doesn't involve beating the crap out of every single challenger; the object is to escape. The heroes will throw a punch here or a kick there, just enough to get away. It's really fun to watch, and leaves you wanting to see more. However, the middle of the film drags into such boring pursuits as "plot" and "character development" which left me bored and wanting to see more reasons for David Belle to escape from somewhere. Cyril Rafaellie picks it up with a heart-pumping one man assault on a dirty casino in which he rolls through around 40 guys in a sweet beatdown scene.
The movie kind of went like this for me. Blah blah blah blah *french* talk talk talk WOAH COOL HE JUST SNAPPED THAT GUY'S NECK! blah blah talk talk...
The plot is really bad, but that's what you expect in a martial arts flick, right? Girls get kidnapped, egos get challenged, cars get blown up, heads get busted. The trick is to spend as little time as possible on the canned plot and two-dimensional themes and just focus on the cool stuff. B13 packs the action in, but there are a few dorky scenes that have the two partners philosophizing with each other about "values" and "morality": don't care! Just beat people down, that's all we want to see.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
The Lost City - C+
Andy Garcia's directorial debut could've flown as a sad story about the loss of a beautiful way of life in the turmoil of the Cuban revolution. Unfortunately a lack of focus on key plot points and a fairly flat retelling of the revolution makes this one a two and a half hour yawner.
The beginning is promising with images of a close family whose ideologies are starting to create division. Garcia is as cool as ever as Fico, the owner of a famous Cuban nightclub called the El Tropico. The cabaret scenes are excellent, which brings me to the movie's only interesting thing - the music. whoever put together the soundtrack really outdid himself with jazzy latin numbers and colorful singers. Unfortunately, Garcia doesn't really come across as a very musical guy, he professes to love the music, but he doesn't really sell it...but that's just nitpicking. The movie starts to go downhill with (oddly enough) the introduction of Bill Murray as a mysterious comedian at the club. Murray's character is perplexing, he never says his name, you never really find out what he does (he never performs, he just hangs out) and you are left to wonder just what in the world his purpose is. He serves as dippy comic relief in some scenes, and as a wry voice of truth in others, but he is never a real person. It really makes you wonder what kind of character Garcia originally had in mind when Bill Murray probably unexpectedly showed interest and got the part just because he's Bill Murray. Unfortunately, because he's Bill Murray that's all he is, and his lines were obviously improved because they don't make any sense with the rest of the script. Dustin Hoffman is equally unneccessary in a bit part as a mob leader looking to take over the nightclub. He appears once at the beginning and at the end, and if you see the movie you'll understand why his character is such a spare.
The story progresses as the family is torn apart by the political upheaval, with sons becoming involved and such. After Fico's brother dies in the revolution, Fico begins a romance with Aurora his widowed wife, a major plot point that is pretty much simmered down into a montage. It's like, they're friends - (several fadeout shots later) - they're in love! I hate that kind of watered down character development that is as lazy as it is ineffective. However, they do have to move the story along, which is (ironically) what Garcia does worst. Too long Andy, too long. There are scores of unneccessary scenes of a brooding Fico or a brooding (insert any other character besides Bill Murray's). There was a lot of brooding going on. Stylistically, Garcia does some cool stuff at the beginning with a well spliced storming the presidential palace/nightclub dance sequence. Fortunately, there is some good support acting. Tomas Millian and Richard Bradford are great ats the two heads of the Fellove household, and Julio Oscar Mechoso is great as a menacing Colonel Candela. Jsu Garcia looks the part as Che Guevarra, but his performance is pretty simplistic. As afore mentioned, the main characters do a lot of brooding and fake crying (you know how actors can cry without sobbing, random tears just drop out). It's too bad that this is what the main characters boil down to. Later in the film, Fico's new love is eventually disrupted, because Aurora goes and hobnobs with the revolutionaries and becomes involved in the government. This was completely unbelievable, she was given absolutely no reason to leave suave, cool Andy Garcia for a gang of scruffy commies. Her changeover is too quick and doesn't make sense, making the parting less bittersweet and more " oh come on" moments.
It's also frustrating when it's so obvious that Garcia wanted this movie to portray Cuba as a paradise lost, but he just didn't show enough of Havana for it to be enticing or even realistic. The movie was incredibly claustrophobic, switching between intimate scenes in rooms or clubs and limited exterior shots that show very little of the landscape. Cuba just didn't feel real. All of the culture scenes are the ones that involve the cabaret, which is something of a false environment.
Bottom line, many undeveloped elements are lost in this war drama. If anything it serves as a reminder of how much communism sucks, despite what's hip right now.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Nacho Libre - B
Amid reviews that are both too good and too damning, Nacho Libre lands somewhere in the middle. Fortunately, the success these sorts of character-driven comedies do not ride on critical acclaim. The laughs are silly, and critics rarely give a thumbs up for silliness. Nevertheless silliness is funny (to me), and I found Nacho Libre to be satisfyingly funny. Comedies so often come down to personal preference. What makes you laugh? Comedy directors are always trying to find out, comedy is like hopeful guesswork, hoping that a gag will strike a chord when it may not. Rating a movie's humor is different from assessing it's storytelling or cinematography. I thought Nacho Libre was funny, but you may not.
Jack Black dons a skin-tight wrestling outfit and mask for his role as Ignacio, a Catholic monk who dreams of being a professional wrestler. His dream is challenged by the conservative Catholic lifestyle, and the fact that he's not all that good. His companion is a skinny street urchin who is more help to Ignacio than expected. Sister Incarnacion's Madonna-like (Mary not singer) looks are a good motivation for the pure-hearted Ignacio. Plotwise, you've seen underdog stories a hundred times, but it's Jack Black's performance that makes the film fresh. He delivers a carefully funny performance as Ignacio (his delivery is very controlled, a new style for Mr. Black). He plays his quest of glory kind of like a goofy Junior High kid who just wants to be admired. His facial expressions are remarkably emotive. Jack Black is good at talking with his eyebrows, and he really works the facial expressions in this movie more than ever before.
Jared Hess lights up the screen with the movie's wonderful photography, shot mostly in Mexico itself, with a Mexican crew. Oh yes, about that, some have called out Hess on his silly portrayal of Mexicans, (Entertainment Weekly indicts him with only using Mexican culture for a cheap laugh) but these accusations are unfair. Many comedies include caricatures of any culture, including our own. Napoleon Dynamite stereotypes small-town folk just as scathingly. Hess looks for silliness in all people, not just any specific culture. Plus, the movie is all the more interesting for being shot in Mexico. The hilly vistas and dry desert shots are remarkably pretty, and bold costumes against candlelit adobe rooms give the film a remarkable sense of mood. Such attention to detail is largely foreign to the comedy genre.
Bottom line, if you liked Napoleon Dynamite, chances are you'll like this, too. It's by no means a poorly made film, whether or not you think Jack Black's Ignacio is funny, though your enjoyment of the film may depend on it. This, like Napoleon Dynamite, is a film that will either be loved or hated depending upon your preference in comedies and how many times you've heard the jokes quoted before actually seeing the movie.
Monday, June 19, 2006
A Prarie Home Companion - B+
Robert Altman's fictionalization of the popular NPR radio show is a mild film that is easy to watch and as enjoyable as the folk music that makes up the bulk of the film's spectacle. Fans of the radio show will be pleased to see how Altman has preserved the spirit of the show, while perhaps not every detail (Powdermilk biscuits, and Guy Noir make the cut, Lake Woebegone does not). In this film, the radio show is a variety show that focuses on the music and fake commercials that make the NPR show so fun, while leaving out the long stories and clever monologues that Keillor is known for. In this movie Keillor plays a different version of himself: this one an oblivious, flat host with a penchant for sameness and not one to get too excited about anything. His foil is a wistfully naive Meryl Streep who plays one sister in a singing duo (the other is Lily Tomlin). Lindsay Lohan plays her daughter, a picture of the young generation who is coerced out of her anti-establishment mannerisms by the heartwarming steadiness of the radio show music. Kevin Kline plays a hilarious version of Guy Noir who in Altman's world, is not a private eye, but rather, an absentminded stage manager who fancies himself as one. Other notable cast members are Woody Harrelson and John C. Reilley as two country singers, Maya Rudolph as the overworked stage-worker person (what do they call those people that say "okay people...5 minutes?"), Tommy Lee Jones as the corporate "Axeman" and Virginia Madsen as the Angel of Death.
The plot is simple and focused on this being the show's last broadcast, and all of the conversations and relational dynamics that ensue. The cast blends well. Keillor, Harrelson, and Reilley's entertaining banter (almost certainly improvesational) is fun to watch, as well as Streep's fluttery personality contrasted with Tomlin's no-nonsense cynicism. Maya Rudolph is not particularly interesting, but it is hard for every character to be interesting with such outstanding oddballs as Keillor, Kline and Streep. There are several plotlines, the most ambitious of which being Madsen's angel plot (reminiscent of the Coen Brothers). This sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't, but it doesn't bring down the film at all. It doesn't add any explanatory complications in an otherwise intentionally simple movie, and Madsen's scene with Keillor is very sweet. The movie could be described as slow and uneventful, but that is what Altman is celebrating, the spirit of the ordinary and sameness that has always been the way of small town American life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)