Wednesday, September 12, 2007
here is my review for "Shoot 'Em Up" as edited by the Record, with revisions (also deemed unacceptable for publishing).
Shoot 'Em Up
Alex Wilgus Staff Writer
Even if you're only a moderate moviegoer, you've seen a good gunfight. Director Michael Davis knows that. However, in his new film, "Shoot 'Em Up," he poses an intriguing question you may not have considered: have you seen a gunfight whilst the hero is also busy delivering a baby?
This is merely the first scene and to give any more details away about the films numerous proceeding action scenes would spoil one of the two entertaining things the film has to offer viewers.
The first thing that "Shoot 'Em Up" explores is just about every possible thing you could be doing when a gunfight breaks out. The other thing is just how many things can be done using a 9mm and an unlimited supply of clips.
Clive Owen stars as a mysterious bystander who saves a newborn child from a gang of ruthless gunmen. Unlike his character in "Children of Men," Owen gets to have some fun while saving a baby from a hail of bullets, this time by turning an arsenal of his own ammunition on a slew of hapless bad guys.
Monica Belucci plays his love interest, a prostitute, and surrogate mother of the child. Paul Giamatti plays the villain. These roles will not win any of these actors any praise, but it is hardly their faults.
Davis's script is so boring that only the most experienced actor could pull an interesting performance out of the lines given him. In this case it is Giamatti who plays a very fun and darkly humorous bad guy. Owen is his usual deadpan and sorely lacking in the mystique that shrouded past action heroes like Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. As for Belucci, she is there solely for aesthetic purposes, so it would be unfair to judge her on any thespian level.
Obviously, a film called "Shoot 'Em Up" is not meant to satisfy any sort of artistic intelligentsia. It's a dumb action movie just like the title, so I'll skip past the glaring complaints of how unrealistic the whole thing is and go straight to the point. Shoot 'Em Up is overly violent, overly sexual and lacking in style. It simply does not live up to its recent predecessors in the genre of super-violent action flicks.
This is not a proud admittance, but I did develop a certain cinematic respect for films like Sin City, Kill Bill, and 300 whose visual stimuli were drawn not only from scenes of cartoony violence, but a unique stylistic vision, that used special effects not only to make people's limbs fly off, but to create a context in which such ridiculousness seems plausible.
Davis claims he drew stylistic influence from Bugs Bunny cartoons, a reference that is not so subtle since Clive Owen eats a whole carrot every other scene and Giamatti is given lines like "you wascawy wabbit." This could have been interesting if the references weren't so blunt.
Despite the director's commentary, the film still feels more influenced by more base media. Anyone who has played first-person-shooter video games like "Goldeneye," "Time Crisis" or "Max Payne" will recognize Davis's "artistic vision."
The other annoying thing is that the plot actually involves an anti-gun element. This was probably meant to be clever or ironic, but it comes across as clumsy and stupid.
In the end "Shoot' Em Up" has little to offer. In fact, maybe the only good thing "Shoot 'Em Up" does is to inadvertently show the hypocrisy of human nature when it comes to violence. Davis bombards the audience with a heavy amount of glorified gun-blazing then tries to take a moral high ground about abstaining from the very violence that is the film's centerpiece. One of Owen's lines in the film actually addresses the problem perfectly: "Don't trust anyone who stands to profit from something, they're the bad guys". Maybe Davis should take that quote to heart.
For me this was an interesting opportunity to examine my own Christian convictions about violence. I believe pointless violence to be wrong, but I realized while watching "Shoot 'Em Up" that I tend to find such violence on film incredibly entertaining. What is it about violence that is so appealing? Even those of us who cognitively deny its value are still entranced by it. I recall nights when I and my friends would divide over the theological issue of 'Just war" and how far the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" extends, and another night all joining together in the Fischer basement to watch Kiefer Sutherland rip a guy's throat out in the latest episode of 24. For marty, despite beliefs to the contrary, violence is still a libidinal fascination, and "Shoot 'Em Up" stands to profit from it.
Shoot 'Em Up
Alex Wilgus Staff Writer
Even if you're only a moderate moviegoer, you've seen a good gunfight. Director Michael Davis knows that. However, in his new film, "Shoot 'Em Up," he poses an intriguing question you may not have considered: have you seen a gunfight whilst the hero is also busy delivering a baby?
This is merely the first scene and to give any more details away about the films numerous proceeding action scenes would spoil one of the two entertaining things the film has to offer viewers.
The first thing that "Shoot 'Em Up" explores is just about every possible thing you could be doing when a gunfight breaks out. The other thing is just how many things can be done using a 9mm and an unlimited supply of clips.
Clive Owen stars as a mysterious bystander who saves a newborn child from a gang of ruthless gunmen. Unlike his character in "Children of Men," Owen gets to have some fun while saving a baby from a hail of bullets, this time by turning an arsenal of his own ammunition on a slew of hapless bad guys.
Monica Belucci plays his love interest, a prostitute, and surrogate mother of the child. Paul Giamatti plays the villain. These roles will not win any of these actors any praise, but it is hardly their faults.
Davis's script is so boring that only the most experienced actor could pull an interesting performance out of the lines given him. In this case it is Giamatti who plays a very fun and darkly humorous bad guy. Owen is his usual deadpan and sorely lacking in the mystique that shrouded past action heroes like Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. As for Belucci, she is there solely for aesthetic purposes, so it would be unfair to judge her on any thespian level.
Obviously, a film called "Shoot 'Em Up" is not meant to satisfy any sort of artistic intelligentsia. It's a dumb action movie just like the title, so I'll skip past the glaring complaints of how unrealistic the whole thing is and go straight to the point. Shoot 'Em Up is overly violent, overly sexual and lacking in style. It simply does not live up to its recent predecessors in the genre of super-violent action flicks.
This is not a proud admittance, but I did develop a certain cinematic respect for films like Sin City, Kill Bill, and 300 whose visual stimuli were drawn not only from scenes of cartoony violence, but a unique stylistic vision, that used special effects not only to make people's limbs fly off, but to create a context in which such ridiculousness seems plausible.
Davis claims he drew stylistic influence from Bugs Bunny cartoons, a reference that is not so subtle since Clive Owen eats a whole carrot every other scene and Giamatti is given lines like "you wascawy wabbit." This could have been interesting if the references weren't so blunt.
Despite the director's commentary, the film still feels more influenced by more base media. Anyone who has played first-person-shooter video games like "Goldeneye," "Time Crisis" or "Max Payne" will recognize Davis's "artistic vision."
The other annoying thing is that the plot actually involves an anti-gun element. This was probably meant to be clever or ironic, but it comes across as clumsy and stupid.
In the end "Shoot' Em Up" has little to offer. In fact, maybe the only good thing "Shoot 'Em Up" does is to inadvertently show the hypocrisy of human nature when it comes to violence. Davis bombards the audience with a heavy amount of glorified gun-blazing then tries to take a moral high ground about abstaining from the very violence that is the film's centerpiece. One of Owen's lines in the film actually addresses the problem perfectly: "Don't trust anyone who stands to profit from something, they're the bad guys". Maybe Davis should take that quote to heart.
For me this was an interesting opportunity to examine my own Christian convictions about violence. I believe pointless violence to be wrong, but I realized while watching "Shoot 'Em Up" that I tend to find such violence on film incredibly entertaining. What is it about violence that is so appealing? Even those of us who cognitively deny its value are still entranced by it. I recall nights when I and my friends would divide over the theological issue of 'Just war" and how far the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" extends, and another night all joining together in the Fischer basement to watch Kiefer Sutherland rip a guy's throat out in the latest episode of 24. For marty, despite beliefs to the contrary, violence is still a libidinal fascination, and "Shoot 'Em Up" stands to profit from it.
here is my review for "Shoot 'Em Up" unedited by the record
Even if you’re only a moderate moviegoer, you’ve seen a good gunfight. Director Michael Davis knows that. However, in his new film, “Shoot ‘Em Up,” he poses an intriguing question you may not have considered: have you seen a gunfight whilst the hero is also busy delivering a baby?
This is merely the first scene and to give any more details away about the films numerous proceeding action scenes would spoil one of the two entertaining things the film has to offer viewers.
The first thing that “Shoot ‘Em Up” explores is just about every possible thing you could be doing when a gunfight breaks out. The other thing is just how many things can be done using a 9mm and an unlimited supply of clips.
I was reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Homer joins a gun club, buys a .35 7 and uses it to do just about everything, open a beer, get a basketball off the roof, etc. Shoot ‘Em Up takes essentially the same gag and extends it to about two hours with some pretty outlandish results.
Clive Owen stars as a mysterious bystander who saves a newborn child from a gang of ruthless gunmen. Unlike his character in “Children of Men,” Owen gets to have some fun while saving a baby from a hail of bullets, this time by turning an arsenal of his own ammunition on a slew of hapless bad guys.
Monica Belucci plays his love interest, a prostitute, and surrogate mother of the child. Paul Giamatti plays the villain. These roles will not win any of these actors any praise, but it is hardly their faults.
Davis’s script is so boring that only the most experienced actor could pull an interesting performance out of the lines given him. In this case it is Giamatti who plays a very fun and darkly humorous bad guy. Owen is his usual deadpan and sorely lacking in the mystique that shrouded past action heroes like Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. As for Belucci, there are two obvious reasons why she was cast and they are displayed prominently throughout the film, so it would be unfair to judge her on any thespian level.
Obviously, a film called “Shoot ‘Em Up” is not meant to satisfy any sort of artistic intelligentsia. It’s a dumb action movie just like the title, so I’ll skip past the glaring complaints of how unrealistic the whole thing is and go straight to the point. Shoot ‘Em Up is overly violent, overly sexual and lacking in style. It simply does not live up to its recent predecessors in the genre of super-violent action flicks.
This is not a proud admittance, but I did develop a certain cinematic respect for films like Sin City, Kill Bill, and 300 whose visual stimuli were drawn not only from scenes of cartoony violence, but a unique stylistic vision, that used special effects not only to make people’s limbs fly off, but to create a context in which such ridiculousness seems plausible.
Davis claims he drew stylistic influence from Bugs Bunny cartoons, a reference that is not so subtle since Clive Owen eats a whole carrot every other scene and Giamatti is given lines like “you wascawy wabbit”. This could have been interesting if the references weren’t so blunt.
Despite the director’s commentary, the film still feels more influenced by more base media. Anyone who has played first-person-shooter video games like “Goldeneye”, “Time Crisis” or “Max Payne” will recognize Davis’s “artistic vision.”
The other annoying thing is that the plot actually involves an anti-gun element. This was probably meant to be cleverly ironic, but it comes across as clumsy and stupid. As stated earlier the only reason this film is entertaining is because it appeals to the male libidinal drive for excessive violence. A director willing to depict blood-splattering on such a scale should be honest about why the film is entertaining and not try to cover his reputation in liberal Hollywood by including an anti-gun bias. It feels hypocritical and silly to take any moral high ground about violence in America after action scenes that make shootouts look like a whole lot of fun. One of Owen’s lines in the film actually addresses the problem perfectly: “Don’t trust anyone who stands to profit from something, they’re the bad guys”. Maybe Davis should take that quote to heart. Maybe the only good thing “Shoot ‘Em Up” does is to inadvertently show the hypocrisy of human nature when it comes to violence. We are constantly speaking out against it, but as evidenced by the financial success that surround films like this one, it still fascinates us deeply.
Even if you’re only a moderate moviegoer, you’ve seen a good gunfight. Director Michael Davis knows that. However, in his new film, “Shoot ‘Em Up,” he poses an intriguing question you may not have considered: have you seen a gunfight whilst the hero is also busy delivering a baby?
This is merely the first scene and to give any more details away about the films numerous proceeding action scenes would spoil one of the two entertaining things the film has to offer viewers.
The first thing that “Shoot ‘Em Up” explores is just about every possible thing you could be doing when a gunfight breaks out. The other thing is just how many things can be done using a 9mm and an unlimited supply of clips.
I was reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Homer joins a gun club, buys a .35 7 and uses it to do just about everything, open a beer, get a basketball off the roof, etc. Shoot ‘Em Up takes essentially the same gag and extends it to about two hours with some pretty outlandish results.
Clive Owen stars as a mysterious bystander who saves a newborn child from a gang of ruthless gunmen. Unlike his character in “Children of Men,” Owen gets to have some fun while saving a baby from a hail of bullets, this time by turning an arsenal of his own ammunition on a slew of hapless bad guys.
Monica Belucci plays his love interest, a prostitute, and surrogate mother of the child. Paul Giamatti plays the villain. These roles will not win any of these actors any praise, but it is hardly their faults.
Davis’s script is so boring that only the most experienced actor could pull an interesting performance out of the lines given him. In this case it is Giamatti who plays a very fun and darkly humorous bad guy. Owen is his usual deadpan and sorely lacking in the mystique that shrouded past action heroes like Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson. As for Belucci, there are two obvious reasons why she was cast and they are displayed prominently throughout the film, so it would be unfair to judge her on any thespian level.
Obviously, a film called “Shoot ‘Em Up” is not meant to satisfy any sort of artistic intelligentsia. It’s a dumb action movie just like the title, so I’ll skip past the glaring complaints of how unrealistic the whole thing is and go straight to the point. Shoot ‘Em Up is overly violent, overly sexual and lacking in style. It simply does not live up to its recent predecessors in the genre of super-violent action flicks.
This is not a proud admittance, but I did develop a certain cinematic respect for films like Sin City, Kill Bill, and 300 whose visual stimuli were drawn not only from scenes of cartoony violence, but a unique stylistic vision, that used special effects not only to make people’s limbs fly off, but to create a context in which such ridiculousness seems plausible.
Davis claims he drew stylistic influence from Bugs Bunny cartoons, a reference that is not so subtle since Clive Owen eats a whole carrot every other scene and Giamatti is given lines like “you wascawy wabbit”. This could have been interesting if the references weren’t so blunt.
Despite the director’s commentary, the film still feels more influenced by more base media. Anyone who has played first-person-shooter video games like “Goldeneye”, “Time Crisis” or “Max Payne” will recognize Davis’s “artistic vision.”
The other annoying thing is that the plot actually involves an anti-gun element. This was probably meant to be cleverly ironic, but it comes across as clumsy and stupid. As stated earlier the only reason this film is entertaining is because it appeals to the male libidinal drive for excessive violence. A director willing to depict blood-splattering on such a scale should be honest about why the film is entertaining and not try to cover his reputation in liberal Hollywood by including an anti-gun bias. It feels hypocritical and silly to take any moral high ground about violence in America after action scenes that make shootouts look like a whole lot of fun. One of Owen’s lines in the film actually addresses the problem perfectly: “Don’t trust anyone who stands to profit from something, they’re the bad guys”. Maybe Davis should take that quote to heart. Maybe the only good thing “Shoot ‘Em Up” does is to inadvertently show the hypocrisy of human nature when it comes to violence. We are constantly speaking out against it, but as evidenced by the financial success that surround films like this one, it still fascinates us deeply.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Ratatouille - A
This is the best movie I've seen in a good while. Pixar has really outdone themselves with a unique story that has everything you'd want in a good animation. It's amazing how much fun is neatly packed into this beautiful piece of computer animation. The film is funny, cultured and even touching thanks to Brad Bird and his brilliant team of animators and writers. This film truly deserves a full breakdown:
First: the story - The slapstick humor, unlikely hero, hilarious villain, and love story are classic Disney elements, but I haven't seen them so well executed in quite a long time (maybe because Disney minus Pixar has put out a decent kids' movie in a long time). Nothing feels contrived, the characters (even those with fake French accents) are totally genuine. Linguini the teenage wannabe chef voiced by Pixar regular Lou Romano is perfectly klutzy and pitiable. Remy the rat chef voiced by veteran comic Patton Oswalt is such perfect blend of animation and voice acting that he deserves to be in the pantheon of classic Disney characters.
Next: the writing: I don't remember the last time I heard such well-written dialogue. Watching talking animals is one thing, but having them resemble and talk like actual people is something else. No line is over-the-top there is no bathroom humor, it's remarkable how perfect every line is. There were a couple of lines that had me in stitches I was laughing so hard. Pixar's uncanny comic awareness has by no means decreased. The article the food critic writes at the end is also an extremely well-written piece of dialogue that sums up the themes in the film nicely
Finally: the animation - Pixar's resolve never to use motion capture (check the certificate at the end of the credits) does them credit as the animation in this movie is particularly convincing. Each gesticulation and expression is finely tuned perfectly conveying the characters' emotions. Not a small feat for a computer animation team. While Zemeckis's studios are focusing on realism in motion capture, Pixar is all about the heart of animation.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Hot Fuzz – B+
Nick Frost and Simon Pegg’s new action comedy is perhaps not as spot on as Shaun of the Dead, but it is still a well-shot, hilarious comedy with many hilarious moments. The setup is that Nicholas Angel, London’s finest cop gets transferred to the quiet country village of Sandford. There his work as an officer is challenged by the complete lack of any crime…for a while. As soon as strange, grisly murders start happening and the entire town passes them off as mere accidents, Angel and his sidekick Danny to save the day.
This movie had me laughing within two minutes. There really is just one great gag after another. Simon Pegg’s face alone makes me laugh, so I guess it didn’t take much. A lot of the laughs come from the film’s brilliant editing which is so overdramatic it is ridiculous. The trippy montage where Sgt. Angel rides the bus to Sandford had me in stitches. The film continues into a great cast of characters including Jim Broadbent as the kindly police commissioner and the two wise-cracking inspectors Andy and Andy (played wonderfully by Paddy Considine and Rafe Spall), and there’s the stereotypical sexually bold female officer whose every line contains some sort of innuendo and a sinister grocery store manager played by one-time Bond Timothy Dalton. There is some startlingly grisly violence that seems part Monty Python, part horror film. It’s pretty gross, but that’s what I expected from Pegg and Frost; it’s one of their trademarks.
The plot may be where this movie was less tight than Shaun of the Dead. It starts out as a fish-out-of water story (big city cop in the country), then progresses into an Agatha Christie sort of whodunit, then ends in a brilliant Bad Boys-esque shootout. Not that there’s anything wrong with genre-mixing, but I didn’t quite get why. I thought the film was going to be a spoof tribute to over-the-top action flicks, but it really is a lot more. I guess there’s nothing wrong with it, it just feels unfocused at times. Plus, the plot takes a long time to develop. The movie keeps you laughing, but I felt like it could’ve been shortened. As it is, the entire film is worth it for the last 30 minutes in which the good guys and bad guys whip out their guns and start unloading on each other in a perfectly shot tribute to Bad Boys or Commando. It’s over the top and brilliant, every line is perfect as the characters hash through the action film script structure. The two Andys become the wisecracking sidekicks, the female cop becomes the badass girl, Danny becomes Martin Lawrence to Angel’s Will Smith and then they all just start shooting. Some shots are just priceless, like a ground shot looking up at Frost and Pegg in full battle armor as a big helicopter flies over in slow motion. Pegg also gets a great scene fully clad with ammo and weapons riding into town on a horse, a completely ridiculous and very funny image.
Hot Fuzz is a lot of things, but mainly a tribute to 80s action cinema. It’s over the top and ultimately very funny. Frost, Pegg and director Edgar Wright are smart filmmakers who like to make punchy action comedies that satisfy on multiple levels. You get great british humor, explosions and gore, and intelligent parody all in one film. Their movies are kind of like a home movie with a budget. Pegg and Frost really seem to just make movies that they’ll have fun making, and fortunately, it’s also a lot of fun to watch.
This movie had me laughing within two minutes. There really is just one great gag after another. Simon Pegg’s face alone makes me laugh, so I guess it didn’t take much. A lot of the laughs come from the film’s brilliant editing which is so overdramatic it is ridiculous. The trippy montage where Sgt. Angel rides the bus to Sandford had me in stitches. The film continues into a great cast of characters including Jim Broadbent as the kindly police commissioner and the two wise-cracking inspectors Andy and Andy (played wonderfully by Paddy Considine and Rafe Spall), and there’s the stereotypical sexually bold female officer whose every line contains some sort of innuendo and a sinister grocery store manager played by one-time Bond Timothy Dalton. There is some startlingly grisly violence that seems part Monty Python, part horror film. It’s pretty gross, but that’s what I expected from Pegg and Frost; it’s one of their trademarks.
The plot may be where this movie was less tight than Shaun of the Dead. It starts out as a fish-out-of water story (big city cop in the country), then progresses into an Agatha Christie sort of whodunit, then ends in a brilliant Bad Boys-esque shootout. Not that there’s anything wrong with genre-mixing, but I didn’t quite get why. I thought the film was going to be a spoof tribute to over-the-top action flicks, but it really is a lot more. I guess there’s nothing wrong with it, it just feels unfocused at times. Plus, the plot takes a long time to develop. The movie keeps you laughing, but I felt like it could’ve been shortened. As it is, the entire film is worth it for the last 30 minutes in which the good guys and bad guys whip out their guns and start unloading on each other in a perfectly shot tribute to Bad Boys or Commando. It’s over the top and brilliant, every line is perfect as the characters hash through the action film script structure. The two Andys become the wisecracking sidekicks, the female cop becomes the badass girl, Danny becomes Martin Lawrence to Angel’s Will Smith and then they all just start shooting. Some shots are just priceless, like a ground shot looking up at Frost and Pegg in full battle armor as a big helicopter flies over in slow motion. Pegg also gets a great scene fully clad with ammo and weapons riding into town on a horse, a completely ridiculous and very funny image.
Hot Fuzz is a lot of things, but mainly a tribute to 80s action cinema. It’s over the top and ultimately very funny. Frost, Pegg and director Edgar Wright are smart filmmakers who like to make punchy action comedies that satisfy on multiple levels. You get great british humor, explosions and gore, and intelligent parody all in one film. Their movies are kind of like a home movie with a budget. Pegg and Frost really seem to just make movies that they’ll have fun making, and fortunately, it’s also a lot of fun to watch.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Pirates 3: A painful lashing with a cat-o'-nine-tails
It’s sad to watch a studio kill a good thing. The series has fallen so far from the freshness of the first film. Pirates 1 was a runaway sleeper hit with a fair storyline, classic swashbuckling action and the memorable character of Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. The series has culminated (hopefully) with Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, a film that stinks of whale anus. There is absolutely no salvation for such an arduous mixing of incomprehensible plotlines and forgettable characters with unrealistic motives.
I’m just going to briefly explain what I think has happened to the Pirates franchise and what should have happened. When Bruckheimer realized that he had a hit on his hands with the first Pirates he and Disney went overboard making sure the next two films were a grand cinematic endeavor. In the spirit of Lord of the Rings, the crew shot the next two movies weaving a huge epic adventure with multiple plotlines and more characters. Pirates of the Caribbean is the last franchise to deserve the epic treatment! It would have worked fine as a Harry Potter-like serial. What should have been done is to take a few common threads around which one can introduce new villains, new allies and new peril with each succeeding episode without altering the formula of the first movie too much. However, Bruckheimer opts for the Lucas approach and makes a trilogy with a definitive beginning and end. This, I believe was a huge mistake. It is rare that a move such as Curse of the Black Pearl can introduce characters that are generic enough to continue on endlessly and interesting enough to enjoy watching onscreen. Heck they could’ve made 5 or 6 loosely connected Pirates films and it would’ve been fine with me as long as you give them all a beginning, middle and end, add some good one-liners and sweet special effects. But no, somehow overblown faux-epic crap tends to sell off of hype alone.
It’s hard to give a plot summary, but it has something to do with the East India Trading Company persecuting the pirates so badly that they are forced to unite and fight back (an endeavor that takes around 2 hours to finally happen!). Then there’s rescuing Jack Sparrow from the dead, Will and Elizabeth are having an ambiguous quarrel, there’s a lady doing a bad Jamaican accent that factors into things somehow, Chow Yun Fat makes an appearance as some Pirate Lord, and Geoffrey Rush as Captain Barbosa is back from the dead…and a good guy! Now imagine out of this entire cast of characters not knowing whether or not any of these schmucks are good-guys or bad-guys! That’s right, it was honestly hard to figure out who was motivated by what, who was double-crossing whom and why. Really by the middle of the film the only good-guy left in the film is Keira Knightly, and I’ve always considered her a bad-guy anyway. The plotlines are tangled up so messily that the entire movie just came across as incomprehensible. After every scene my sister and I just turned to each other and went “what the…?” The film is kind of like coming in on a conversation and not knowing what is being discussed. You get bits and pieces of coherence, but can’t quite put it together. I saw “Dead Man’s Chest”, but I guess I didn’t remember enough of it to tie it in with “World’s End” or maybe they were too loosely connected to make any sense. You, the viewer, are given no exposition or setup for this film at all, it just plunges right in, and then it takes over an hour to get to the first action scene! It’s uncanny just how boring this film was. Even Johnny Depp’s antics as Jack Sparrow fall flat. The film unwisely takes the viewer into what appears to be his now entirely schizophrenic psyche with a few of the dumbest scenes ever. Depp is funny on his own, stop messing with him. Plus, Sparrow isn’t even a major character in this. There is no main character, everyone is just a pawn in progressing the film’s incomprehensible storyline. Director Gore Verbinski has taken every mildly delightful character from the first movie and rendered them completely charmless. Having Geoffrey Rush back from the dead as a good guy could have been a good move (he delivers the same delicious performance as Captain Barbosa) except that most of his screen-time is reduced to explaining what is going on and why all the pirates need to join and fight the British. He ends up being kind of a spare.
Pirates 3 also transgresses one of the hallowed Alex Wilgus laws of sci-fi/fantasy cinema *ahem*: In order for something to be extraordinary, it needs to take place in an ordinary environment. The skeleton pirates in Pirates 1 were at least treated as unusual and scary, but by this film, mutant fish pirates are hanging around with British nobility, crews travel effortlessly to mythological worlds and fantastical things happen without any character blinking an eye. Like the Matrix, the world of Pirates regresses into a reality without simple rules like death or gravity.
The oddest thing about this film is that the last ten minutes are actually pretty satisfactory. After it’s all over, the film actually returns to some of the roots planted by the first film. The romance ends bittersweet and Jack Sparrow returns to the seas as a Pirate errant. It’s funny, because the very last few minutes started to excite me. I was thinking “oh yeah, this whole Pirate setup is kind of cool” then it ended, and I was reminded of the two and a half hours of crap that preceded this ultimately decent finale. If anything this movie made me want to see the first one again and forget that this one or the second one ever happened.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Sentimental Spidey
I’m going to go ahead and get this out there for all you naysayers: this is not a bad movie. I understand if things were disappointing, a little convoluted or not as good as the last two, whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that this movie is still good. It’s not as good as the triumphant Spider Man 2 (a tough act for any comic flick to follow since it’s largely hailed as the greatest superhero movie of all time), and it’s not as fun as the first one, but the simple fact is that there are more things that work in this film than don’t and it is a decent entry into the Spider Man series and a very good entry into the superhero genre as a whole.
The main thing that this movie suffered from was success syndrome. The las two films were so loved by fans and critics alike that part 3 has a pretty tough act to follow, and let it be known that the same director using the same characters being expected to produce a new bag of tricks for every movie in a series that both critics, die-hard fans and the average popcorn-munching moviegoer needs to love is a near-impossible feat. Director Sam Raimi called this the most stressful movie of his life which is not hard to believe considering the amount of villains, plotlines and special effects that went into it. The film does feel a little overstuffed at points, but it does level out in the end and finish what it started.
The setup is that Spider Man/Peter Parker is on top of the world, the city loves him, Mary Jane loves him. He’s so full of himself that all it takes is some alien, outer-space goo to turn him into an overconfident, reckless superhero out to take revenge on all who cross him. The black suit is a physical manifestation of people’s tendencies to be brash and self-absorbed. The metaphor workds really well. The imagery of revenge and self-righteousness becoming like a venomous symbiote that can attach itself to you and never let go is an excellent picture. The 2 ½ hour film sees Peter Parker’s original mantra of power and responsibility being challenged by no one but himself.
But Parker’s dark side is not the only villain, oh no, there are three (count ‘em) villains in this picture, Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and ultimately Venom. Of all of them Sandman is the coolest; it was really great to see such a classic villain come to life so vividly. Harry Osborne’s new goblin has the same weird techno suit, but the chase scenes where he tears after Peter Parker down alleyways and up in the sky was breathtaking.
Anyway, there’s some stuff that didn’t work too. The story felt a little awkward around the middle as the Peter/Harry/Mary Jane love triangle was reintroduced. It felt a little forced, and there was one segment involving Harry forcing MJ to break up with Peter that was never really explained. Anyway, the point was that Peter needs to get pissed at Harry for the rest of the “revenge” story to work. There is also a scene where Peter is consumed by the black suit and in a daze of self-absorption walks down Michigan avenue giving girls winks and shooter fingers. He combs his hair down in a pathetic attempt to look “cool” and even does a comic dance in a Jazz club to spite Mary Jane. Contrary to many, I thought this scene was great. It was very true to Peter’s character. It’s important to remember that he is in his heart a total nerd, and when he is possessed by delusions of grandeur, the result is pathetic, not awe inspiring. This scene was comic genius. The Jazz club scene felt like it was right off Stan Lee’s hallowed pages.
Couple of nitpicks from a fan: It’s annoying to me when Spidey is unmasked in nearly every single fight. I understand how it plays up the humanity, but honestly, everyone knows who he is! Keep the mask on, Raimi!
Also, the villain geneses seemed a little coincidental. Oh man, that crook just happened to fall into a sand neuron quantum emitter experiment!!! Or oh no some asteroid just happened to land next to Peter in a park and the alien symbiote followed him home! Well, whatever, these things are minor.
In the end I liked this movie because it never departed from the natures of the characters and even explores another side of Parker that was stimulating, even if it wasn’t as fun to watch. The story of a hero becoming a villain is not very fun to watch because it leaves you not knowing who to root for. Sam Van Hallgren of filmspotting.net said it best: “Raimi has not given up on sentimentality.” It is true that the end of the film could be called “sappy”, but I thought it was an impressive attempt at making a superhero film more than just a special effects fest (Fantastic Four). Maybe it doesn’t work as well as the first two, but it is refreshing to see a summer movie with more of a heart than just money making action. I do not have high hopes for Pirates 3 in that department, but we’ll see. It’s just nice to hear a major motion picture that includes lines like “a man must put his wife before himself”. I don’t know about Sam Raimi’s faith, but he at least has a much larger conscience than do most action directors.
I’m going to go ahead and get this out there for all you naysayers: this is not a bad movie. I understand if things were disappointing, a little convoluted or not as good as the last two, whatever, it doesn’t change the fact that this movie is still good. It’s not as good as the triumphant Spider Man 2 (a tough act for any comic flick to follow since it’s largely hailed as the greatest superhero movie of all time), and it’s not as fun as the first one, but the simple fact is that there are more things that work in this film than don’t and it is a decent entry into the Spider Man series and a very good entry into the superhero genre as a whole.
The main thing that this movie suffered from was success syndrome. The las two films were so loved by fans and critics alike that part 3 has a pretty tough act to follow, and let it be known that the same director using the same characters being expected to produce a new bag of tricks for every movie in a series that both critics, die-hard fans and the average popcorn-munching moviegoer needs to love is a near-impossible feat. Director Sam Raimi called this the most stressful movie of his life which is not hard to believe considering the amount of villains, plotlines and special effects that went into it. The film does feel a little overstuffed at points, but it does level out in the end and finish what it started.
The setup is that Spider Man/Peter Parker is on top of the world, the city loves him, Mary Jane loves him. He’s so full of himself that all it takes is some alien, outer-space goo to turn him into an overconfident, reckless superhero out to take revenge on all who cross him. The black suit is a physical manifestation of people’s tendencies to be brash and self-absorbed. The metaphor workds really well. The imagery of revenge and self-righteousness becoming like a venomous symbiote that can attach itself to you and never let go is an excellent picture. The 2 ½ hour film sees Peter Parker’s original mantra of power and responsibility being challenged by no one but himself.
But Parker’s dark side is not the only villain, oh no, there are three (count ‘em) villains in this picture, Sandman, Green Goblin 2, and ultimately Venom. Of all of them Sandman is the coolest; it was really great to see such a classic villain come to life so vividly. Harry Osborne’s new goblin has the same weird techno suit, but the chase scenes where he tears after Peter Parker down alleyways and up in the sky was breathtaking.
Anyway, there’s some stuff that didn’t work too. The story felt a little awkward around the middle as the Peter/Harry/Mary Jane love triangle was reintroduced. It felt a little forced, and there was one segment involving Harry forcing MJ to break up with Peter that was never really explained. Anyway, the point was that Peter needs to get pissed at Harry for the rest of the “revenge” story to work. There is also a scene where Peter is consumed by the black suit and in a daze of self-absorption walks down Michigan avenue giving girls winks and shooter fingers. He combs his hair down in a pathetic attempt to look “cool” and even does a comic dance in a Jazz club to spite Mary Jane. Contrary to many, I thought this scene was great. It was very true to Peter’s character. It’s important to remember that he is in his heart a total nerd, and when he is possessed by delusions of grandeur, the result is pathetic, not awe inspiring. This scene was comic genius. The Jazz club scene felt like it was right off Stan Lee’s hallowed pages.
Couple of nitpicks from a fan: It’s annoying to me when Spidey is unmasked in nearly every single fight. I understand how it plays up the humanity, but honestly, everyone knows who he is! Keep the mask on, Raimi!
Also, the villain geneses seemed a little coincidental. Oh man, that crook just happened to fall into a sand neuron quantum emitter experiment!!! Or oh no some asteroid just happened to land next to Peter in a park and the alien symbiote followed him home! Well, whatever, these things are minor.
In the end I liked this movie because it never departed from the natures of the characters and even explores another side of Parker that was stimulating, even if it wasn’t as fun to watch. The story of a hero becoming a villain is not very fun to watch because it leaves you not knowing who to root for. Sam Van Hallgren of filmspotting.net said it best: “Raimi has not given up on sentimentality.” It is true that the end of the film could be called “sappy”, but I thought it was an impressive attempt at making a superhero film more than just a special effects fest (Fantastic Four). Maybe it doesn’t work as well as the first two, but it is refreshing to see a summer movie with more of a heart than just money making action. I do not have high hopes for Pirates 3 in that department, but we’ll see. It’s just nice to hear a major motion picture that includes lines like “a man must put his wife before himself”. I don’t know about Sam Raimi’s faith, but he at least has a much larger conscience than do most action directors.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Pan's Labyrinth - A+
Whether it be through rabbit holes, magic portals or wardrobes, fantasy stories usually offer us a chance to escape from the limitations of the world as we know it to look at the age old human condition from the fresh perspective of an imaginative world. Guillermo Del Toro, however, does away with any explanation of how his magical world is entered and confronts fantasy with reality in a completely new way. The blendiing of the real and the fantastic hinges on its main character, Ofelia an imaginitive young Spanish girl who finds herself caught up in the aftershocks of her country's Civil War in the 1940s (this is a Spanish movie subtitled in English). Devoted to her mother and her unborn brother, but loathing of her evil stepfather, a fascist general, Ofelia finds escape from her bleak surroundings when she finds a faun in the woods outside of their country estate who commissions her to perform three tasks to become a princess and to be transported to her magical kingdom beneath the earth. The faun is not cuddly like Mr. Tumnus, but a gaunt unearthly creature with a more mythical and sinister appearance. The faun sets the tone for the entire movie, wondrous but dark. Pan's Labyrinth is no Narnia-ish romp through a magical world, but a shadowy fable of tragedy, evil and innocence in the time of war. Just because Ofelia has been told that she will become a princess does not lessen the pain of her ailing mother, the evil intentions of her stepfather and the inevitable suffering that war inflicts upon the weak. The fantasy story parallels her real life trials and interprets them through a child's eyes. Thus, Ofelia's fantasy world, though beautiful and imaginative, is no less dangerous than the harshness of real life. One scene involving a child-eating monster takes you right back to every nightmare you had as a sixth year old kid, and a descent into a dying tree to extract a gluttonous toad explores new levels of gross.
At the risk of being labeled a prudish, point-missing Christian I feel a duty to note that the violence in this film is extreme. It occurs mostly at the behest of Ofelia’s vicious stepfather, a Spanish general with a penchant for torture. Not only does Del Toro make no attempt at downplaying the violence of war, he amplifies it. The violent content is disturbing and unrealistic, but also essential to the film’s purpose. Unlike “Children of Men” or “Saving Private Ryan” the outlook on violence is not incidental and heartless, it is personal and vengeful. The camera often lingers on the bloody imagery more like a horror film than a war movie, and it carries a more profound and sentimental effect than the chaotic battlegrounds of other typical war films. Del Toro gives us time with the victims allowing their suffering to evoke a maximal response of disgust and pity from the audience. Ofelia’s mother tells her daughter in one scene “you will learn that the world is a cruel place…even if it hurts.” The violence in “Pan’s Labyrinth”, however, goes beyond a simple portrayal of cruelty. The interpretation of war in Spanish art has always carried a mythical significance. The film's violence reminded me of Goya's etchings which would depict unrelentingly gruesome scenes of torture complete with mythic demons amid a landscape that looked vaguely like Spain, but seemed more reminiscent of hell. Del Toro’s take on war continues in the spirit of Goya, masterfully blending the horrors of reality and nightmare into a seamless whole. Though the two worlds are kept largely separate, they are thematically bound together, and the motivations of the villains and heroes in both realms parallel each other in a profound way.
Aside from the artistic achievements that the casual moviegoer can take or leave, the story is effective and moving. Newcomer Ivana Baquero plays the lead role beautifully with a delicate balance of innocence and rebellion that characterizes the age of transitional age of 12. Sergi Lopez plays her stepfather with a disquietingly cool ruthlessness that makes him easily the most evil villain of the year. The story flows wonderfully and the finale (which I will not give away!) is a satisfying synthesis of tragedy and victory, fantasy and reality. Everyone will have something to take away from this film whether you are a total fantasy geek or someone who just enjoys imaginative
Whether it be through rabbit holes, magic portals or wardrobes, fantasy stories usually offer us a chance to escape from the limitations of the world as we know it to look at the age old human condition from the fresh perspective of an imaginative world. Guillermo Del Toro, however, does away with any explanation of how his magical world is entered and confronts fantasy with reality in a completely new way. The blendiing of the real and the fantastic hinges on its main character, Ofelia an imaginitive young Spanish girl who finds herself caught up in the aftershocks of her country's Civil War in the 1940s (this is a Spanish movie subtitled in English). Devoted to her mother and her unborn brother, but loathing of her evil stepfather, a fascist general, Ofelia finds escape from her bleak surroundings when she finds a faun in the woods outside of their country estate who commissions her to perform three tasks to become a princess and to be transported to her magical kingdom beneath the earth. The faun is not cuddly like Mr. Tumnus, but a gaunt unearthly creature with a more mythical and sinister appearance. The faun sets the tone for the entire movie, wondrous but dark. Pan's Labyrinth is no Narnia-ish romp through a magical world, but a shadowy fable of tragedy, evil and innocence in the time of war. Just because Ofelia has been told that she will become a princess does not lessen the pain of her ailing mother, the evil intentions of her stepfather and the inevitable suffering that war inflicts upon the weak. The fantasy story parallels her real life trials and interprets them through a child's eyes. Thus, Ofelia's fantasy world, though beautiful and imaginative, is no less dangerous than the harshness of real life. One scene involving a child-eating monster takes you right back to every nightmare you had as a sixth year old kid, and a descent into a dying tree to extract a gluttonous toad explores new levels of gross.
At the risk of being labeled a prudish, point-missing Christian I feel a duty to note that the violence in this film is extreme. It occurs mostly at the behest of Ofelia’s vicious stepfather, a Spanish general with a penchant for torture. Not only does Del Toro make no attempt at downplaying the violence of war, he amplifies it. The violent content is disturbing and unrealistic, but also essential to the film’s purpose. Unlike “Children of Men” or “Saving Private Ryan” the outlook on violence is not incidental and heartless, it is personal and vengeful. The camera often lingers on the bloody imagery more like a horror film than a war movie, and it carries a more profound and sentimental effect than the chaotic battlegrounds of other typical war films. Del Toro gives us time with the victims allowing their suffering to evoke a maximal response of disgust and pity from the audience. Ofelia’s mother tells her daughter in one scene “you will learn that the world is a cruel place…even if it hurts.” The violence in “Pan’s Labyrinth”, however, goes beyond a simple portrayal of cruelty. The interpretation of war in Spanish art has always carried a mythical significance. The film's violence reminded me of Goya's etchings which would depict unrelentingly gruesome scenes of torture complete with mythic demons amid a landscape that looked vaguely like Spain, but seemed more reminiscent of hell. Del Toro’s take on war continues in the spirit of Goya, masterfully blending the horrors of reality and nightmare into a seamless whole. Though the two worlds are kept largely separate, they are thematically bound together, and the motivations of the villains and heroes in both realms parallel each other in a profound way.
Aside from the artistic achievements that the casual moviegoer can take or leave, the story is effective and moving. Newcomer Ivana Baquero plays the lead role beautifully with a delicate balance of innocence and rebellion that characterizes the age of transitional age of 12. Sergi Lopez plays her stepfather with a disquietingly cool ruthlessness that makes him easily the most evil villain of the year. The story flows wonderfully and the finale (which I will not give away!) is a satisfying synthesis of tragedy and victory, fantasy and reality. Everyone will have something to take away from this film whether you are a total fantasy geek or someone who just enjoys imaginative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)