Here's what you need to know: In spite of the ridiculous hype surrounding Marvel's The Avengers, it's good. Really good.
The culmination of four years' worth of Marvel's superhero movies finally arrives, with Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) and The Hulk (new Hulk Mark Ruffalo) uniting on the big screen with Black Widow and Hawkeye (Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner, respectively) for an all-out action fest.
Helmed by geek-favourite director Joss Whedon (Buffy The Vampire Slayer), the action never lets up from the opening scene till the explosive final act where the heroes have their showdown with supervillain Loki (Tom Hiddleston), last seen in Thor, who's taken control of the Tesseract from Captain America and using it to welcome otherworldly invaders to Earth.
But this is no Bay-esque mindless action flick. Whedon balances the explosiveness with strong characterisation and an emotional centre that will have you rooting for all the heroes. The director - only his second time helming a feature film - has done the impossible by balancing a large cast of stars and giving each of them their time in the sun. The moment they rise from a tragic event to finally team up is especially stirring. No spoilers here, not to worry.
There are also laugh-out-loud moments throughout that cut the tension. Whether it's a snarky Tony Stark or a smashing Hulk (one of many memorable moments), The Avengers is very funny.
Sure, there are some imperfections. While not necessary, it does help to have watched the previous Marvel movies. The usually Machiavellian Loki, while generally menacing, also at times seems to lack conviction. But given all the positives, these quibbles just disappear. And don't expect the movie to be a treatise on the human condition - we have Batman for that.
All in all, this is a movie that works on many levels, from action to emotion. With the summer filled with superhero flicks like The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers sets the bar high, and even has the potential to be one of the best superhero movies of all time. It is definitely proof that you don't have to be dark and serious just to make a great comic-book movie - The Avengers is unadulterated fun.
As for the comic-book geek? Let's just say you won't be disappointed. ALVIN CHONG
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Review The Raven (2012)
SYNOPSIS:
When a madman begins committing horrific murders inspired by Edgar Allan Poe’s works, a young Baltimore detective joins forces with Poe to stop him from making his stories a reality.
REVIEW:
I’m no student of Edgar Allen Poe, I admit that fully & without fear of prejudice from anyone reading this review who might take umbrage with some of my opinions. I’ve read “The Raven” and “Annabel Lee” though and I’ve seen all of Roger Corman’s classic film adaptations of Poe’s work like “The Pit And The Pendulum” and “Masque Of The Red Death” (A personal favorite). But although I respect the man and his work, I hardly thought of him as some sort of action hero. Yet in James McTigue’s (V For Vendetta) latest film that is exactly how we’re supposed to envision the man. And while “The Raven” does have some moments of true suspense & a fair amount of grue as well ultimately it fails on a few fronts that just made it feel like more of a well produced cable movie for me. let me explain…
“The Raven” posits that there is a madman on the loose who is murdering people exactly as Poe has murdered them in his published work. Lead detective Fields (Luke Evans) recognizes the similarities and enlists Poe to capture the murderer. The murderer leaves clues at the scene of each murder and who better than Poe to interpret the clues and (Hopefully) figure out the killer’s next move and capture him before he murders someone else? The murders (Those that are featured onscreen anyway) are quite graphic & gory, surprisingly so in fact. But we are actually witness to one in all it’s gruesome glory, the others are shown after the dirty deeds are done but they are still exceedingly gruesome to look at.
Poe (John Cusack) immediately deciphers the first clue he’s given as being related to “The Masque Of The Red Death” and as there is a gala masquerade ball taking place the following night Fields convinces Captain Hamilton (Brendan Gleeson) who is running the event to allow him to put station some of his men amongst the revelers to capture the suspect as it is believed that he must arrive in a costume representing death in one way, shape or form. Well they get a man who bursts into the ball on a horse wearing a skull mask but not only is he not the suspect but as he created a diversion, Hamilton’s lovely daughter Emily (Alice Eve) is abducted & is now being held captive by the villain. The decoy on the horse has a message from him as well, one in which he challenges Poe to figure out where Emily is before she too is murdered. Although Hamilton despises the very sight of Poe (Who was to announce his intent to marry Emily at the ball), he must allow Poe to become part of the investigation since everything the killer bases his crimes are come from Poe’s written work.
“The Raven” starts out slowly, showing us how far Edgar has fallen. He is an extremely opinionated drunk who suffers no fool and has no issues with critiquing other writers of the day whose work he finds inferior. There’s a great scene early in the film in which Poe is gobsmacked when he finds out that a piece he had written for the local newspaper was not used & replaced by a poem from Longfellow (Longfellow? LONGFELLOW?) whom he despises. As Poe, Cusack initially turned me off. His decision to portray Poe as a bug eyed, bellowing drunkard might have been historically accurate but he really chews up the scenery with an energy that reminded me of Nicholas Cage at the height of his, for lack of a better word, “Caginess”. But as the film progresses, he calms down since he has to pour all of that wanton energy into finding the woman that he loves. What started out as a “UH-OH” type of performance for me turned out to be a very nuanced one in which Cusack really displayed his range as one of the better (And criminally, unsung) actors of his generation.
All of the performances in the film are well cast and help to convey the period the film takes place in (Baltimore, 1879). I did find it odd that there were some English accents strewn about among some of the characters while others seemed to sound like they came straight out of a episode of “Jersey Shore”. It was a bit disconcerting for me to say the least but hardly a deal breaker. I also had a problem with the manner in which the crimes were disseminated by Detective Fields. Now I am no expert on police procedurals of the 1800′s but it seemed to me that Fields was a lot more competent than I would’ve thought a detective of that time might be. Sometimes he sounded like he was in an episode of “CSI” circa 1879 and while I (Admittedly) know nothing of how detectives investigated murders back then, something tells me that they weren’t this good. As Fields, Evans brings a bit of panache & determination to the role that was refreshing if a bit too modern sounding. Alice Eve & Brendan Gleeson are suitably convincing as father/daughter also. Ms. Eve has a near porcelain quality to her skin and is also suitably busty enough to wear the dresses of the era and Gleeson is appropriately gruff yet displays his feelings towards both Emily and Poe without leaving any doubt in the audiences mind.
The film looks amazing as well with excellent production design/cinematography throughout. A lot of thought went behind how this movie was going to look and it shows. In a film like this poor design and lighting would kill it before the opening credits have finished rolling but not here. Kudos to Roger Ford (Production design) & Danny Ruhlmann (Cinematography). It was shot in Belgrade and the look & feel of the backdrops are spot on. James McTeigue’s direction shows a strong understanding of the material & despite Cusack’s wild acting in the opening scenes of the film the film never drags and gets stronger as it moves ahead.
So what didn’t I like about “The Raven”? Well for starters, it’s about 20 minutes too long. Listed at 111 minutes in length it felt 30 minutes longer. Ten to fifteen minutes could have been shorn from it’s total running time with no noticeable difference. And the use of a Raven (Or Ravens) in nearly every other scene became extremely heavyhanded and obvious. The audience already knows what the name of the film is, we didn’t need to be reminded every other scene or so. and it’s fairly well known that Poe was something of an odd bird already, the inclusion of a raccoon as Poe’s pet seemed a bit over the top to me. It was a unnecessary quirk that seemed tacked on to make him seem even more peculiar.
There is a scene in which Emily seemingly becomes one extremely tough woman which seemed to be the polar opposite of the character we were introduced to in the beginning of the film. I won’t go into detail but you’ll know what scene I’m talking about when it arrives, I thought it was stupid and contrived. Some of the editing seemed to be scattershot as well. In one scene, we see Poe surrounded by policemen yet in the next scene he’s all alone in a foggy forest being shot at by the killer. And the bullet comes at him as if it was shot from a gun that existed in “The Matrix”, in slow motion with a shiny veneer to it. And does Poe take cover afterwards? Nope..he just sits there waiting for another slow motion slug to be shot at him. And when the killer is revealed, he tells Poe of his next target…Jules Verne! I’d love to know how he was planning to recreate some of Verne’s more elaborate creations, was he planning to build the “Nautilus”?
“The Raven” smacks of an attempt to recreate the success of Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” films. The attempt to make Poe some sort of action hero doesn’t fail entirely but it doesn’t quite succeed either. John Cusack’s Poe doesn’t radiate the machismo that Robert Downey Jr’s Holmes does but the role wasn’t written that way so it’s not a killer blow to it’s success. The film ends with Poe sitting on a park bench just as it begins, how & why he ends up there is the meat of the story and it’s a pretty satisfying one but something is missing here. I wish I could put my finger on it but right now all I can say is that while I enjoyed it…It still left me feeling a bit empty when it was all said and done. But it’s hardly a bad film and it is an entertaining one so “The Raven” merits a three out of five on my Shroud-ometer. You don’t have to drop whatever you’re doing to see it on opening weekend but it is worth a watch when you have a couple of hours & $12 bucks to kill.
The Raven (2012)
Review The Five-Year Engagement
The Five-Year Engagement is cut from the same cloth as 2008′s Forgetting Sarah Marshall and shares many of the elements that made that film successful. It was co-written by Sarah Marshall writer/star Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller (who directed both FSM and this movie), and has a cast that effortlessly embodies the movie’s characters. Along with a certain sweetness that permeates both films, there’s also something here that most romantic comedies are sorely lacking these days: characters that actually feel like real people. Thanks to Segel and Stoller’s writing and the easygoing and likeable cast, I can easily imagine life for these characters both before the film starts and long after it ends, a feat to which I’m not sure any movie in the “Katherine Heigl” subgenre of rom-coms could lay claim.
Emily Blunt and Jason Segel star as Violet and Tom, a couple one character later describes as being “almost perfect for each other.” Tom is a chef at a sleek San Francisco restaurant and works with Alex (Chris Pratt), who I swore was his character’s brother, but realized upon looking it up he’s just his best friend. Violet is applying to grad schools to become a psychologist, and in the opening scene, the two get engaged and take the audience through a flashback of the night they met. Violet quickly gets accepted to a graduate program, but much to the dismay of her sister (Alison Brie) and mother (Jacki Weaver), the new program is all the way in Michigan, so the wedding is delayed. Tom gives up a head chef position and ends up working at a local college sandwich shop while Violet studies with her new professor, an arrogant ladies’ man named Winton (Rhys Ifans), and with wedding plans perpetually pushed back, you can see where the conflicts would arise.
I don’t want to make this film out to sound groundbreaking or anything, because it definitely follows a standard formula for these kinds of movies. If you’ve seen four or five romantic comedies in your life, chances are pretty good you’ll be able to chart out every major plot point in this film before you see it. But the same thing could be said about a lot of action movies after watching their trailers, and ultimately, enjoyment comes down to the execution. Segel and Blunt are wonderful to watch (and, I suspect, inherently likeable in almost any role because of their infectious personalities). The supporting cast is made up of a ton of funny people, including Brian Posehn and Chris Parnell as Tom’s creepy and sometimes-inappropriate friends and Kevin Hart and Mindy Kaling as Violet’s co-workers who are obsessed with masturbation and gossip, respectively.
Pratt and Brie are especially hilarious, but I’ll admit that my fondness for them stems heavily from being an avid fan of their NBC shows “Parks and Recreation” and “Community.” (Despite the fact that I may be blinded by bias, Brie’s English accent is impressive and consistent throughout the movie, even during an adorable scene in which she and Blunt speak to each other in Sesame Street character voices because children are nearby.)
Stoller seems to have mastered the art of directing talented comedians, employing his typical reserved style and allowing the performances to outshine the flashiness of the direction. There’s always something authentic about his films that seems to justify their existence outside of a simple premise or one sentence synopsis, and if I were to pinpoint that specific element, I’d say it’s a sense of heart. We care about what these characters are doing because they’re so well-crafted and well-acted; as we watch them for two hours, their relationships matter. I’ve seen a few criticisms that point out this film’s thesis is basically “settling is good enough,” but I don’t actually think that’s what’s being said here at all. Yes, one of the characters might have said those words (or similar ones) in the movie, but if you look at the larger picture and see what these two mean to each other, I think a more positive message can be taken away from this experience.
The Five-Year Engagement deals with some complicated issues but never gets bogged down with them, always remembering that it’s a comedy first and foremost. A decent premise, honest characters, and a really funny script put this movie way above the average romantic comedy. Until next time…
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
We Bought a Zoo Review
Cameron Crowe has never been the most prolific director, but the interval since making Elizabethtown in 2005 has been the longest of his career. After immediately establishing himself as an authentic talent, writing and directing some true classics, the last decade hasn’t been as kind to the filmmaker, as his films took a sharp decline in quality. Now Crowe has returned with We Bought A Zoo, but sadly it’s more of a faint cry than a bang.
Based on a true story, the film centers on Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon), a recently widowed father struggling to raise a teenage son, named Dylan (Colin Ford) and a young daughter named Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones). Following advice from his brother (Thomas Haden Church) about a fresh start, Benjamin begins to look for a new house, but when he finds the perfect new home he discovers that it has a catch: it’s actually a defunct zoo. Seeing how much his daughter loves the place, Benjamin decides to take a leap and invest in refurbishing the menagerie and works with the head zookeeper, Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), and her strange assorted crew to restore the park to its former glory.
The greatest success of We Bought A Zoo is its characters and the bonds between them, aided by terrific performances from the entire cast. While Benjamin's relationship with his children couldn't be more different – one is sweet and lighthearted while the other is caustic and harsh – Damon’s has a great, authentic rapport with each of the child actors and the script does a good job developing both. The best developed arc in the movie, however, is between Damon and Johansson, as Benjamin struggles to prove his commitment to the park to the skeptical Kelly, and their relationship successfully blooms into a romance without beating the audience over the head.
While the film as a whole earns its emotional impact, there are definite moments where Crowe is manipulating the audience a bit too much. This is done largely by doing countless close-ups of Maggie Elizabeth Jones, who almost succeeds in being too cute. These scenes don’t taint the story as a whole, but they’re off-putting because the movie is filled with so many authentic feelings that the artificial ones stick out. The audience can tell the difference between sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
The film falters with its muddled and clumsy story, letting the strong central relationships overshadow smaller characters and important plot points. Patrick Fugit, Angus MacFadden and Carlo Gallo play park employees helping Benjamin rebuild the park, the central part of the movie, and though that plot line gets a solid resolution, the talented actors aren't given enough to do. There’s also a romantic subplot involving Kelly’s niece, played by Elle Fanning, and Dylan, which is sweet, but doesn’t have nearly the impact that it should because there’s so much else going on. But even the main storyline isn’t free from problems. Following the aforementioned resolution in the third act, the film immediately introduces another major conflict that throttles the pacing and winds up hurting all of the film’s final scenes.
What ends up holding back We Bought A Zoo are the little things, like the badly underdeveloped bit players or the exposition-filled, misplaced narration that opens the film. It has a lot of these tiny problems, but relationships between the characters, the performances and the story overall are good enough to at least balance them out. The movie isn’t nearly as strong as Crowe’s best work, such as Say Anything…, Almost Famous and Jerry Maguire, but it’s a solid effort following his six year hiatus and definitely a step up from Elizabethtown.
Based on a true story, the film centers on Benjamin Mee (Matt Damon), a recently widowed father struggling to raise a teenage son, named Dylan (Colin Ford) and a young daughter named Rosie (Maggie Elizabeth Jones). Following advice from his brother (Thomas Haden Church) about a fresh start, Benjamin begins to look for a new house, but when he finds the perfect new home he discovers that it has a catch: it’s actually a defunct zoo. Seeing how much his daughter loves the place, Benjamin decides to take a leap and invest in refurbishing the menagerie and works with the head zookeeper, Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), and her strange assorted crew to restore the park to its former glory.
The greatest success of We Bought A Zoo is its characters and the bonds between them, aided by terrific performances from the entire cast. While Benjamin's relationship with his children couldn't be more different – one is sweet and lighthearted while the other is caustic and harsh – Damon’s has a great, authentic rapport with each of the child actors and the script does a good job developing both. The best developed arc in the movie, however, is between Damon and Johansson, as Benjamin struggles to prove his commitment to the park to the skeptical Kelly, and their relationship successfully blooms into a romance without beating the audience over the head.
While the film as a whole earns its emotional impact, there are definite moments where Crowe is manipulating the audience a bit too much. This is done largely by doing countless close-ups of Maggie Elizabeth Jones, who almost succeeds in being too cute. These scenes don’t taint the story as a whole, but they’re off-putting because the movie is filled with so many authentic feelings that the artificial ones stick out. The audience can tell the difference between sugar and high fructose corn syrup.
The film falters with its muddled and clumsy story, letting the strong central relationships overshadow smaller characters and important plot points. Patrick Fugit, Angus MacFadden and Carlo Gallo play park employees helping Benjamin rebuild the park, the central part of the movie, and though that plot line gets a solid resolution, the talented actors aren't given enough to do. There’s also a romantic subplot involving Kelly’s niece, played by Elle Fanning, and Dylan, which is sweet, but doesn’t have nearly the impact that it should because there’s so much else going on. But even the main storyline isn’t free from problems. Following the aforementioned resolution in the third act, the film immediately introduces another major conflict that throttles the pacing and winds up hurting all of the film’s final scenes.
What ends up holding back We Bought A Zoo are the little things, like the badly underdeveloped bit players or the exposition-filled, misplaced narration that opens the film. It has a lot of these tiny problems, but relationships between the characters, the performances and the story overall are good enough to at least balance them out. The movie isn’t nearly as strong as Crowe’s best work, such as Say Anything…, Almost Famous and Jerry Maguire, but it’s a solid effort following his six year hiatus and definitely a step up from Elizabethtown.
This Means War Review
With all due respect to General William Tecumseh Sherman, This Mean War isn’t hell. It just isn’t as fun as the various trailers and commercials make it out to be.
If you’ve seen the ads, you basically know all War has to offer. And if you haven’t, you’ll still be able to guess exactly where War is heading. Best friends Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) are the finest agents the CIA has to offer. But when a series of coincidences – and some sloppy screenwriting shortcuts – have them both dating a pretty product tester named Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), the guys wage a “friendly” competition to see who can win the woman’s hand.
More silly than chauvinistic, This Means War can’t decide if it’s an action-thriller with a little romance mixed in, or a formulaic rom-com with one or two memorable action set pieces. Thanks to its constant wavering and lack of clear-cut direction, it whiffs completely on both potential premises.
Let’s take a moment and lament the loss of a noteworthy action comedy, because the pieces appear to be in play for a legitimate winner cut from the cloth of 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon or, at the very least, Tango & Cash. War director McG might be coming off of 2009’s somber, dour Terminator: Salvation, but he has two lightweight Charlie’s Angels adventures on his resume, and he’s certainly capable of cranking out a lightweight lark. A little bit of the frivolous helium he injected into the goofy Angels series might have helped lift War off the ground, because this humorless bird rarely takes flight over its near-two-hour run.
Hardy and Pine do have the combustible chemistry needed for a yin-yang buddy comedy. A smart studio executive would hand these two a Shane Black script, then sit back and count the money as it came rolling in. Pine continues to show off the loose charm and natural charisma that he used to carry J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot. It’s Hardy, though, who shows off a previously unseen sense of humor and easygoing personality. At the very least, I’m glad War drew out that side of the talented Warrior and Bronson star before Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises -- and the long, dark shadow of Bane – swallows up his future career options.
Too bad Tuck and FDR’s pursuit of a Russian baddie (Til Schweiger) – and their unmistakably flirtatious banter – has to be shelved every couple of minutes so screenwriters Timothy Dowling and Simon Kinberg can belabor the ludicrous love triangle that hangs around this picture’s neck like an anchor. There’s a solid concept at play here, with secret agents using the full resources of the CIA to investigate a girl they want to know a little better. But War doesn’t make Lauren anything more than a beautiful piece of meat who needs a crass sidekick (Chelsea Handler) to tell her how to think, act and feel. The women are an afterthought in War. Witherspoon poses adorably but can’t manage much else from her poorly developed part. And Handler hammers the same booze-soaked note she brings to virtually every project. The best screenplays have a way of snapping together, like small pieces of a large puzzle. When War reaches a narrative obstacle it can’t explain, it cuts its puzzle pieces in half, then glues them back together. Sloppily.
There is one thing that caught my eye, though, and it bears mentioning. Instead of coming up with at least one halfway-decent action sequence, McG pays attention to the movies that are playing in television screens in the background of scenes. I spotted Young Frankenstein, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and, in a lengthy scene, James Cameron’s Titanic. It might be the only time I can think of that the movies playing away from the action were infinitely better than the film in which they are being played.
If you’ve seen the ads, you basically know all War has to offer. And if you haven’t, you’ll still be able to guess exactly where War is heading. Best friends Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) are the finest agents the CIA has to offer. But when a series of coincidences – and some sloppy screenwriting shortcuts – have them both dating a pretty product tester named Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), the guys wage a “friendly” competition to see who can win the woman’s hand.
More silly than chauvinistic, This Means War can’t decide if it’s an action-thriller with a little romance mixed in, or a formulaic rom-com with one or two memorable action set pieces. Thanks to its constant wavering and lack of clear-cut direction, it whiffs completely on both potential premises.
Let’s take a moment and lament the loss of a noteworthy action comedy, because the pieces appear to be in play for a legitimate winner cut from the cloth of 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon or, at the very least, Tango & Cash. War director McG might be coming off of 2009’s somber, dour Terminator: Salvation, but he has two lightweight Charlie’s Angels adventures on his resume, and he’s certainly capable of cranking out a lightweight lark. A little bit of the frivolous helium he injected into the goofy Angels series might have helped lift War off the ground, because this humorless bird rarely takes flight over its near-two-hour run.
Hardy and Pine do have the combustible chemistry needed for a yin-yang buddy comedy. A smart studio executive would hand these two a Shane Black script, then sit back and count the money as it came rolling in. Pine continues to show off the loose charm and natural charisma that he used to carry J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek reboot. It’s Hardy, though, who shows off a previously unseen sense of humor and easygoing personality. At the very least, I’m glad War drew out that side of the talented Warrior and Bronson star before Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises -- and the long, dark shadow of Bane – swallows up his future career options.
Too bad Tuck and FDR’s pursuit of a Russian baddie (Til Schweiger) – and their unmistakably flirtatious banter – has to be shelved every couple of minutes so screenwriters Timothy Dowling and Simon Kinberg can belabor the ludicrous love triangle that hangs around this picture’s neck like an anchor. There’s a solid concept at play here, with secret agents using the full resources of the CIA to investigate a girl they want to know a little better. But War doesn’t make Lauren anything more than a beautiful piece of meat who needs a crass sidekick (Chelsea Handler) to tell her how to think, act and feel. The women are an afterthought in War. Witherspoon poses adorably but can’t manage much else from her poorly developed part. And Handler hammers the same booze-soaked note she brings to virtually every project. The best screenplays have a way of snapping together, like small pieces of a large puzzle. When War reaches a narrative obstacle it can’t explain, it cuts its puzzle pieces in half, then glues them back together. Sloppily.
There is one thing that caught my eye, though, and it bears mentioning. Instead of coming up with at least one halfway-decent action sequence, McG pays attention to the movies that are playing in television screens in the background of scenes. I spotted Young Frankenstein, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and, in a lengthy scene, James Cameron’s Titanic. It might be the only time I can think of that the movies playing away from the action were infinitely better than the film in which they are being played.
Declaration of War Review
The revelations are minor but forceful in Valerie Donzelli's exuberant melodrama Declaration of War, which casts the director as the mother of a two-year-old who is diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor. The father of the child, the literal Romeo to her Juliette, is played by Jeremie Elkaim, Donzelli's co-scripter and the father of their son, Gabriel, whose struggles with terminal illness were the antecedent of the film's narrative core. The personal weight of the story is abundant but as the title infers, Donzelli's film is not an ode to anguished soul-searching in the face of that most blunt notice of mortality.
Faith and its more popular mandates are of little matter in Donzelli and Elkaim's script, as are fiscal worries while coasting through France's universal health care system. This allows Donzelli to investigate the effects of tragedy, and the strengths and stresses of community, family, and partnership under these conditions, with a consistently inventive and yet remarkably clear-eyed and sober stylistic eye. Family and concerned community are of equal weight, indeed almost inseparable, in Romeo and Juliette's life. Few films in recent memory have approached such communities, which includes Romeo's lesbian mother (Brigitte Sy) and her partner, without even a hint of condescension or dull moral scrutiny.
The most fascinating figures in this gathering are Romeo and Juliette themselves, who are not married (neither are Elkaim and Donzelli) and yet share an emotionally rich and well-detailed partnership as the film progresses through a litany of specialists, nurses, diagnosticians, social workers, and surgeons. Donzelli catches the central couple in moments of cathartic partying and self-exploration (or indulgence?) in between hospital visits rather than scenes of repetitive sentimentality that attest to wholly unearned, thrift-store pride and survival of spirit. Indeed, one of the more refreshing things witnessed in Declaration of War is Romeo and Juliette's wanton youth, which is constantly unleashed and consistently humbled by the humanist work being done by the hospital workers and doctors; never is Juliette's maternal instinct held up as somehow more wise or right than the opinions of educated professionals.
This tendency towards ambiguity in terms of social habits and sexual preferences puts focus on the inner life of Romeo and Juliette, expressed with audacious style by Donzelli - a musical interlude, a make-out party, a fast-paced dash through the corridors of the hospital, stately narration. Through rushes of house and dubstep, careful, active framing and uniformly strong performers, including Frederic Pierrot, Anne Le Ny, Michelle Moretti and Philippe Laudenbach, Donzelli creates a lively aesthetic environment in which Juliette and Romeo's unique relationship becomes a truly personal matter, as it often is, and not a matter necessarily swayed or distinguished by trauma, social stigmas, or psychological quirks. In fact, the most public issue that Romeo and Juliette are tied to is the health of their child which, in what might seem like a socialist dystopia to some, is here portrayed as an axiom of public good and civility.
Chronicle Review
When you hear that director Josh Trank and writer Max Landis (son of John) are out to reinvent the superhero origin story via Chronicle, their found footage sci-fi film effort, all kinds of warranted warning flags go up. After all, this is a genre that can't decide between making one anxious (via the whole 'you are there' narrative) or nauseous (thanks to all the shaky camera antics). Worse still, there's the nagging "why are you filming everything?" element that never seems to be addressed. Finally, many of these movies avoid big, lavish special effects in order to maintain a level of lo-fi "realism." Thankfully, Trank and Landis are prepared to address these concerns and then some. The result is one of the best uses of the filmmaking format since a trio of documentarians entered the Burkittsville Woods, looking for a certain witch.
Confirmed class outsider Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan) has just bought himself a new video camera. Why? Well, his mother is dying and his drunken dad likes to take out his frustrations on the boy's face. Apparently, our lead needs something to record the abuse. Picked on at school, his only friend seems to be his cautious cousin Matt (Alex Russell). One night, at a party, they catch up with school sports icon Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan) and together, they discover a mysterious cave containing a bizarre alien artifact. A few weeks later, they each have become 'empowered' with certain abilities -- telekinesis, flight -- and are enjoying their newfound superhero skills. Then Andrew's rage at the world grows out of control and soon battle lines are drawn between the trio.
Chronicle is terrific. It argues for the effectiveness of the found footage gimmick while giving us the kind of comic book kick few films in the genre can even pretend to deliver. A lot like M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable in both tone and approach, it's as if Trank and Landis found a way to merge The Breakfast Club with the typical "birth of a hero/villain" plot to show what would really happen should adolescents, minds confused and hormones raging, become capable of almost anything. We get the fun of discovering the limits inherent in one's new abilities while never once going wholly overboard into raunchiness or ridiculousness. These guys don't try to destroy society or advance some personal perversion. Instead, they use their new gifts as a means of empowerment -- and in the case of Andrew, escape.
Indeed, this is Andrew's movie. He is the reason we get the camera footage, the reason the footage continues in a new and novel way (you have to love how Trank and Landis solve the inherent 'constant camera' complaint) and the organic way his path goes from halting to hurt to harmful. Like a flawless four frame epic, Andrew appears destined to be the damaged god who gives way to a supervillain, and who better to be his adversary than his reluctant champion cousin. All throughout Chronicle, we watch as things build to a head between the trio. Even better, the ending delivers the kind of rock 'em, sock 'em payoff the premise promises. Few films of this type even come close (we're looking at you, The Devil Inside).
But this is more than just a stunt well done. Chronicle will resonate with anyone who felt/feels high school is nothing more than a melting pot of socially mandated misery, where the populars pick on the nerds because...well, because it's somehow an acceptable part of the whole "growing up" ideal. In this case, however, Andrew and his friends learn that a little cosmic comeuppance can make homeroom a bit easier to handle -- until the pain becomes real. As entertaining as it is inventive, Chronicle is a minor masterwork.
Chronicle is terrific. It argues for the effectiveness of the found footage gimmick while giving us the kind of comic book kick few films in the genre can even pretend to deliver. A lot like M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable in both tone and approach, it's as if Trank and Landis found a way to merge The Breakfast Club with the typical "birth of a hero/villain" plot to show what would really happen should adolescents, minds confused and hormones raging, become capable of almost anything. We get the fun of discovering the limits inherent in one's new abilities while never once going wholly overboard into raunchiness or ridiculousness. These guys don't try to destroy society or advance some personal perversion. Instead, they use their new gifts as a means of empowerment -- and in the case of Andrew, escape.
Indeed, this is Andrew's movie. He is the reason we get the camera footage, the reason the footage continues in a new and novel way (you have to love how Trank and Landis solve the inherent 'constant camera' complaint) and the organic way his path goes from halting to hurt to harmful. Like a flawless four frame epic, Andrew appears destined to be the damaged god who gives way to a supervillain, and who better to be his adversary than his reluctant champion cousin. All throughout Chronicle, we watch as things build to a head between the trio. Even better, the ending delivers the kind of rock 'em, sock 'em payoff the premise promises. Few films of this type even come close (we're looking at you, The Devil Inside).
But this is more than just a stunt well done. Chronicle will resonate with anyone who felt/feels high school is nothing more than a melting pot of socially mandated misery, where the populars pick on the nerds because...well, because it's somehow an acceptable part of the whole "growing up" ideal. In this case, however, Andrew and his friends learn that a little cosmic comeuppance can make homeroom a bit easier to handle -- until the pain becomes real. As entertaining as it is inventive, Chronicle is a minor masterwork.
Safe House Review
Midway through Denzel Washington’s latest thriller, his character – rogue CIA operative Tobin Frost – is described as “the black Dorian Gray”. And it’s true: the 57-year-old really doesn’t look much different from when he got his first Oscar nod 25 years ago for playing Steve Biko in Cry Freedom.
Though set in South Africa, the 1987 film had to be shot elsewhere due to opposition from the country’s Apartheid regime.
This time, the double Oscar winner finally makes it to Cape Town, thanks to Swedish director Daniel Espinosa, a script by David Guggenheim plucked off the infamous “black list” of unproduced screenplays and the collapse of a shameful system DW can claim a small part in consigning to history.
Safe House’s arresting locales – vividly captured by Bourne lenser Oliver Wood – are enough to make Espinosa’s follow-up to his well-liked, if under-seen, Easy Money (aka Snabba Cash) seem striking and singular.
The irony is the city’s vivacity is largely lost on Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a low-level CIA “housekeeper” at one of its many secure locations who spends most of his time alone, bored and staring at walls.
That all changes when Frost – on the lam from gun-toting bad guys pursuing intel he has obtained from MI6 spook Liam Cunningham – strolls into the local US consulate requesting asylum.
This brings him into Matt’s orbit, his safe house the natural place for the renegade spy to be interned, interrogated and gently tortured by Robert Patrick’s grizzled veteran.
Feel the noise
Or it would be, if it wasn’t promptly raided by Tobin’s pursuers in the first of numerous noisy set-pieces. (Espinosa loves the sound of heavy artillery in confined spaces.)
Several stiffs later and Safe House is where it needs to be: on the townships streets, with Reynolds forced to play reluctant nursemaid to Washington as he tries to work out who’s trying to kill them and whether he should ever tell French girlfriend Nora Arnezeder (Paris 36) what he really does for a living.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen Washington required to play a seasoned mentor to a callow rookie (see also Training Day, Unstoppable and The Bone Collector) and, thanks to Man On Fire, Déjà Vu and a few other movies that weren’t directed by Tony Scott, he’s also had much experience in ass-kicking, pistol-packing and other staples of high-octane action cinema.
But if there is ever a sense here that he’s simply marking time until the next personal pet project or sold-out Broadway run, it’s more than made up for by the effortless self-confidence and commanding brio he brings to the material.
It’s nice, too, to see him flirting with villainy again, Frost being a thoroughly enigmatic customer whose motivations – beyond giving his minder the slip whenever the opportunity arises – are never made clear. With a tad more humour this could easily have been a Southern Hemisphere Midnight Run.
Strangely, though, Reynolds dials down his customary insouciance as the earnest novice, projecting a nervy, sweaty desperation throughout that makes us ponder why he ever thought espionage was a suitable career.
Given how much the film depends on the cat-and-mouse relationship between its leads and the grudging respect they come to have for each other, it’s a shame they couldn’t have been more evenly matched.
Yet the supporting actors help to make up the shortfall, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard popping up at various stages as Ryan’s CIA higher-ups and Rubén Blades turning in an affecting cameo as a forger friend of Washington’s who now puts family ahead of black ops.
Talk of the Town
Cape Town itself provides an unfamiliar setting that generously serves up a variety of arenas for mayhem.
An early car chase on its bustling thoroughfares is matched later by an electric stand-off at a packed Green Point stadium, while the corrugated roofs of the sprawling Langa shanty town prove ideal for jumping on and off during a frantic foot pursuit.
From the guttural Afrikaans Reynolds fleetingly adopts to the vuvuzela cacophony that accompanies the soccer stadium scenes, there’s a distinct aural texture that makes Safe House feel fresher than average.
All that’s missing is an indigenous castmember, Espinosa spurning the chance to bring a native talent to the fore, like District 9 did with Sharlto Copley.
“I like games!” grins Denzel at one point, which is handy given this basically amounts to an extended bout of hide-and-seek. Yet if we never feel that there’s much at stake, that doesn’t prevent Safe House being a solid property built on firm foundations that’s worth a visit if you’re in the area.
Though set in South Africa, the 1987 film had to be shot elsewhere due to opposition from the country’s Apartheid regime.
This time, the double Oscar winner finally makes it to Cape Town, thanks to Swedish director Daniel Espinosa, a script by David Guggenheim plucked off the infamous “black list” of unproduced screenplays and the collapse of a shameful system DW can claim a small part in consigning to history.
Safe House’s arresting locales – vividly captured by Bourne lenser Oliver Wood – are enough to make Espinosa’s follow-up to his well-liked, if under-seen, Easy Money (aka Snabba Cash) seem striking and singular.
The irony is the city’s vivacity is largely lost on Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a low-level CIA “housekeeper” at one of its many secure locations who spends most of his time alone, bored and staring at walls.
That all changes when Frost – on the lam from gun-toting bad guys pursuing intel he has obtained from MI6 spook Liam Cunningham – strolls into the local US consulate requesting asylum.
This brings him into Matt’s orbit, his safe house the natural place for the renegade spy to be interned, interrogated and gently tortured by Robert Patrick’s grizzled veteran.
Feel the noise
Or it would be, if it wasn’t promptly raided by Tobin’s pursuers in the first of numerous noisy set-pieces. (Espinosa loves the sound of heavy artillery in confined spaces.)
Several stiffs later and Safe House is where it needs to be: on the townships streets, with Reynolds forced to play reluctant nursemaid to Washington as he tries to work out who’s trying to kill them and whether he should ever tell French girlfriend Nora Arnezeder (Paris 36) what he really does for a living.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen Washington required to play a seasoned mentor to a callow rookie (see also Training Day, Unstoppable and The Bone Collector) and, thanks to Man On Fire, Déjà Vu and a few other movies that weren’t directed by Tony Scott, he’s also had much experience in ass-kicking, pistol-packing and other staples of high-octane action cinema.
But if there is ever a sense here that he’s simply marking time until the next personal pet project or sold-out Broadway run, it’s more than made up for by the effortless self-confidence and commanding brio he brings to the material.
It’s nice, too, to see him flirting with villainy again, Frost being a thoroughly enigmatic customer whose motivations – beyond giving his minder the slip whenever the opportunity arises – are never made clear. With a tad more humour this could easily have been a Southern Hemisphere Midnight Run.
Strangely, though, Reynolds dials down his customary insouciance as the earnest novice, projecting a nervy, sweaty desperation throughout that makes us ponder why he ever thought espionage was a suitable career.
Given how much the film depends on the cat-and-mouse relationship between its leads and the grudging respect they come to have for each other, it’s a shame they couldn’t have been more evenly matched.
Yet the supporting actors help to make up the shortfall, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard popping up at various stages as Ryan’s CIA higher-ups and Rubén Blades turning in an affecting cameo as a forger friend of Washington’s who now puts family ahead of black ops.
Talk of the Town
Cape Town itself provides an unfamiliar setting that generously serves up a variety of arenas for mayhem.
An early car chase on its bustling thoroughfares is matched later by an electric stand-off at a packed Green Point stadium, while the corrugated roofs of the sprawling Langa shanty town prove ideal for jumping on and off during a frantic foot pursuit.
From the guttural Afrikaans Reynolds fleetingly adopts to the vuvuzela cacophony that accompanies the soccer stadium scenes, there’s a distinct aural texture that makes Safe House feel fresher than average.
All that’s missing is an indigenous castmember, Espinosa spurning the chance to bring a native talent to the fore, like District 9 did with Sharlto Copley.
“I like games!” grins Denzel at one point, which is handy given this basically amounts to an extended bout of hide-and-seek. Yet if we never feel that there’s much at stake, that doesn’t prevent Safe House being a solid property built on firm foundations that’s worth a visit if you’re in the area.
Verdict:
Bring earplugs and you’ll enjoy an efficient vehicle for Denzel that makes good use of its South African scenery. Espinosa nimbly combines flash with Paul Greengrass-style flair.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Super 8 Review
Super 8 for me captures a feeling of childhood that I havent seen in movies in a long time. Hollywood doesnt make movies about kids these days, not without a big name stars and high concept condescending stories. What happened to the good ol’ coming of age story? You know, the types of stories which connected with the truths of childhood and growing up? I feel like none of the major studios would make The Sandlot, Stand By Me, A Christmas Story, My Girl or Angus in 2011.
The best compliment I can give Super 8 is that I could watch a whole movie with the characters of this film, a story that doesn’t involve a train crash, a mysterious monster on the loose, or any sci-fi aspects at all, and I would enjoy it just as much (if not more). Most movies of this type have paper-thin characters who only serve to get the story to the next plot point for the next special effects heavy tentpole action sequence. Super 8 succeeds where most of these types of movies fail. You care about the characters, maybe to much. If anything, it succeeds on such a grand level that when the story switches gears to full science fiction action adventure mode, you might wish it could’ve just stuck with the story of the kids.
When talking about Super 8, a lot of people are making comparisons to the Goonies orE.T., but to me it feels more like Stand By Me meets Close Encounters, by the way ofCloverfield. Yes, one of these three things is not like the others, can you guess which one? As the story goes, Abrams wanted to make a personal story about a group of kids making movies with Super 8 cameras. Abrams didn’t think he had a whole idea and with the help of producer Steven Spielberg, they arrived at the idea of combining it with another one of Abrams’ ideas which involved a monster on the loose in a small town. The resulting movie does feel like two separate ideas mashed together, and suffers from a couple jarring tonal shifts.
Most people think of JJ Abrams as a science fiction action director, but I believe that branded image is well crafted misdirection. Abrams’ strength is that he has always been brilliant at capturing the truth in character-centric drama and comedy as both a writer and director. Think about it. From the screenplays he wrote early in his career,Taking Care of Business, Forever Young and Regarding Henry, all character centric. He was given a writing credit on Michael Bay’s Armageddon, but his real contribution to that film was the two notable character-based moments in the story (I’m sure you could easily guess them if you try). After discovering Alias, I went back and watched Felicity — another great example of Abrams’ talent of being able to connect emotional truths in relationships. I would watch each episode, and without looking at the opening credits, most of the time I was able to guess which episodes Abrams had written.
Most people look at Lost as a sci-fi television series now, but in the first season it was very much a character-centric drama inside a mystery box. The best scene in Mission: Impossible III is not a special effects heavy action sequence, but the cold open, which involves the villain Owen Davian played by Philip Seymour Hoffman holding Ethan Hunt’s wife Julia at gunpoint as he demands information that Hunt doesn’t possess. And many people like to think that Star Trek is a science fiction action movie, but the film contains less than 10% of the action of a big tentpole blockbuster film (for instance, compare the minutes of action against 2012, an action movie released the same year). The reason why Star Trek works is purely because of the character moments. Again, the opening sequence aboard the USS Kelvin is another great example of Abrams’ masterful ability to manipulate emotion and make us care.
What does this have to do with Super 8?
Everything.
Because for me, Super 8 isn’t really about a monster on the loose in a small town.
Experiencing the death of one of your parents at such a young age may as well feel like a gigantic never ending train crash.
A monster runs wild and destroys everything you knew about the small little world you grew up in.
I try not to get too introspective in my movie reviews and screening reaction video blogs. But with JJ Abrams’ Super 8, I find it impossible not to be a bit introspective in my thoughts.
I grew up more than a decade after J.J. Abrams, yet I feel we lived through many of the same experiences. I didn’t have a Super 8 film camera, but instead a 8mm video camera. Instead of zombie movies, I produced movies like “Warriors Through Time”, an epic scale battle between two super-powered time travelers (all shot with low-fi special effects in a small backyard in Natick, Massachusetts), and a story of a pet hamster, left at home during a family vacation, who must defend the house from evil burglars (it was kind of Home Alone meetsLooks Who’s Talking, because you heard what the Hamster was thinking). Okay, maybe not the greatest ideas ever. I’d love to see what Abrams cooked up as a child director.
My Father had always been a little emotionally distant. My mother died before I hit double digits, and while it may have taken years to get past, it eventually brought us closer together. I’m telling you all this so that you can understand one thing — while I had never experienced any of the action you’ll see in Super 8, the movie connected with me at my very core.
Super 8 is a movie that feels like it was made just for me. Have you ever experienced that? Some of my favorite movies of all time give me this feeling. And as you might imagine, its hard to be objective about such a movie (not that a movie review should ever be objective, but you know what I mean).
X-men First Class Review
X-Men First Class is an interesting animal. Knowing the love of the first X-Movies, the hate of the later ones, the insanely short shooting schedule, ret-conning the continuity, Matt Vaughn's movie reputation (including another comic adaptation, Kick-Ass) and everything else going on with this property, its a wonder as much of the movie works as well as it does. The very first trailers were a glimpse at something special.
Early on, there were talks of reboots, talks of prequels, and talks of a Magneto spin-off movie. X-Men First Class is a mix of all of these things. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it all comes together. By now, many have praised the movie, and to be fair, it is a lot of "fun". It manages to balance the comic book sensationalism with the real world backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis fairly well.
Full spoilers
The X-Men movies have always had themes of prejudice, but now, being set in the 60s, they had a chance go even deeper with it (which the filmmakers promised) and sadly, it was a missed opportunity. There was no racial tension whatsoever with some of the minority characters (is this the 60s or not?) but overall there is no real sense of hostility towards any of the mutants outside of typical teen teasing stuff that could apply to any time period. In Bryan Singer's movies, you get the real sense the mutants have to hide. First Class is a pretty straight-forward revenge movie with the cold war material dominating the subplot. There just isn't enough room to really examine the mutant prejudice in detail.
Also, it is sad to see the cliche that a black character is the first, and only mutant to die in this film. The other black character is the first to switch to the bad side, btw. Take that as you will.
If you just look at the structure of the movie, its not as "fresh" as some are making it out to be. The protagonist is Erik Lehnsherr all the way, he's the one driving the plot, moving the action forward, and while he and Xavier share some nice scenes together, their friendship feels slightly rushed, as does Xavier's transformation from playboy Oxford grad to gung-ho human rights activist. Magneto essentially plays the "Wolverine" role, focused squarely on revenge and haunted by his past. Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw essentially plays the "Magneto" role- a superpowered villain who has big plans for the future of mutantkind. And even Emma Frost is basically just the "Mystique" role, as Shaw's right hand woman. Frost is such a great character that deserves better.
Also, if you think about it, Magneto's hatred for humans is unjustified since the man who ruined his life, who made him who he is, is a MUTANT. Shaw's part in the story completely betrays Magneto's character motivation, so by the time he has his "Darth Vader" moment, it doesn't quite feel earned.
For a movie about the creation of the X-Men, that comes into play relatively late in the movie, and is basically a brief series of montages before they are ready to go stop NUCLEAR WAR.
But ignore thematic missteps. Ignore storytelling structure. What matters most to me is if it does right by the comics. If you can ignore the extreme changes made to the core mythology, you can like this film. But it took great effort for me to do this, and I've concluded that if you can ignore these things, you either don't know X-Men or you just don't care. Not even getting into the new mutants chosen for the "first class", this is a film that suggests Mystique and Xavier were best friends since childhood. That it was Beast that created Cerebro (the existence of Magento's helmet now makes no sense). That Moria MacTaggart isn't a geneticist, but rather an agent of the CIA- Rose Byrne is really weak in this btw (between her, January Jones, and Jennifer "Mutant and Proud!" Lawrence, why are all the women in this film so bad?).
It should be noted that outside of his telepathy, McAvoy could have really been anybody because he just doesn't look or feel like Charles Xavier. But many characters aren't right in one way or another, be it nationality or anachronisms like Alex "hula hoop" Summers (Cyclops' younger brother), and having Nightcrawler's father (Azaezel) and mother (Mystique) in the film, but seemingly unconnected.
Perhaps that falls into reboot category, but if it's a reboot, why directly lift from Singer's opening Nazi scene, and why keep Mystique's scaly design? The mere fact that the first class are all new mutants suggests they didn't want to step on the continuity of characters' ages.
It is very clear Matthew Vaughn just wanted to do his own thing; Specifically, he wanted to make a James Bond movie, using X-Men characters, and he does. I suspect this is how David O Russel's Uncharted would have turned out: the studio letting him just do what he wants, core material be damned. But with all this said, X-Men First Class works more often than not. Fassbender truly is great, and there are a couple of excellent scenes (the the Argentinian bar, a memory sequence, a particular cameo) that are as good as anything the X-Men movies have ever delivered. Matthew Vaughn's direction is strong, especially the action sequences, Beast's transformation, and the final battle. As different as Xavier is, he is very likable, as are many of the new kids, especially Banshee who I wish was in this more.
First Class is good. Sometimes its great. But I think its getting overpraised, and I wonder how well it will age. Everyone is already dying for a sequel, and I'm not sure if I want one or not. It's reinvigorating, for sure, but this just means we'll be even farther away from that ever elusive "proper" X-Men movie. Because this still isn't it.
Early on, there were talks of reboots, talks of prequels, and talks of a Magneto spin-off movie. X-Men First Class is a mix of all of these things. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it all comes together. By now, many have praised the movie, and to be fair, it is a lot of "fun". It manages to balance the comic book sensationalism with the real world backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis fairly well.
Full spoilers
The X-Men movies have always had themes of prejudice, but now, being set in the 60s, they had a chance go even deeper with it (which the filmmakers promised) and sadly, it was a missed opportunity. There was no racial tension whatsoever with some of the minority characters (is this the 60s or not?) but overall there is no real sense of hostility towards any of the mutants outside of typical teen teasing stuff that could apply to any time period. In Bryan Singer's movies, you get the real sense the mutants have to hide. First Class is a pretty straight-forward revenge movie with the cold war material dominating the subplot. There just isn't enough room to really examine the mutant prejudice in detail.
Also, it is sad to see the cliche that a black character is the first, and only mutant to die in this film. The other black character is the first to switch to the bad side, btw. Take that as you will.
If you just look at the structure of the movie, its not as "fresh" as some are making it out to be. The protagonist is Erik Lehnsherr all the way, he's the one driving the plot, moving the action forward, and while he and Xavier share some nice scenes together, their friendship feels slightly rushed, as does Xavier's transformation from playboy Oxford grad to gung-ho human rights activist. Magneto essentially plays the "Wolverine" role, focused squarely on revenge and haunted by his past. Kevin Bacon's Sebastian Shaw essentially plays the "Magneto" role- a superpowered villain who has big plans for the future of mutantkind. And even Emma Frost is basically just the "Mystique" role, as Shaw's right hand woman. Frost is such a great character that deserves better.
Also, if you think about it, Magneto's hatred for humans is unjustified since the man who ruined his life, who made him who he is, is a MUTANT. Shaw's part in the story completely betrays Magneto's character motivation, so by the time he has his "Darth Vader" moment, it doesn't quite feel earned.
For a movie about the creation of the X-Men, that comes into play relatively late in the movie, and is basically a brief series of montages before they are ready to go stop NUCLEAR WAR.
But ignore thematic missteps. Ignore storytelling structure. What matters most to me is if it does right by the comics. If you can ignore the extreme changes made to the core mythology, you can like this film. But it took great effort for me to do this, and I've concluded that if you can ignore these things, you either don't know X-Men or you just don't care. Not even getting into the new mutants chosen for the "first class", this is a film that suggests Mystique and Xavier were best friends since childhood. That it was Beast that created Cerebro (the existence of Magento's helmet now makes no sense). That Moria MacTaggart isn't a geneticist, but rather an agent of the CIA- Rose Byrne is really weak in this btw (between her, January Jones, and Jennifer "Mutant and Proud!" Lawrence, why are all the women in this film so bad?).
It should be noted that outside of his telepathy, McAvoy could have really been anybody because he just doesn't look or feel like Charles Xavier. But many characters aren't right in one way or another, be it nationality or anachronisms like Alex "hula hoop" Summers (Cyclops' younger brother), and having Nightcrawler's father (Azaezel) and mother (Mystique) in the film, but seemingly unconnected.
Perhaps that falls into reboot category, but if it's a reboot, why directly lift from Singer's opening Nazi scene, and why keep Mystique's scaly design? The mere fact that the first class are all new mutants suggests they didn't want to step on the continuity of characters' ages.
It is very clear Matthew Vaughn just wanted to do his own thing; Specifically, he wanted to make a James Bond movie, using X-Men characters, and he does. I suspect this is how David O Russel's Uncharted would have turned out: the studio letting him just do what he wants, core material be damned. But with all this said, X-Men First Class works more often than not. Fassbender truly is great, and there are a couple of excellent scenes (the the Argentinian bar, a memory sequence, a particular cameo) that are as good as anything the X-Men movies have ever delivered. Matthew Vaughn's direction is strong, especially the action sequences, Beast's transformation, and the final battle. As different as Xavier is, he is very likable, as are many of the new kids, especially Banshee who I wish was in this more.
First Class is good. Sometimes its great. But I think its getting overpraised, and I wonder how well it will age. Everyone is already dying for a sequel, and I'm not sure if I want one or not. It's reinvigorating, for sure, but this just means we'll be even farther away from that ever elusive "proper" X-Men movie. Because this still isn't it.
Kung Fu Panda 2 Review
While once venerable film genres such as dramas and romantic comedies have been falling short for years, the one-time bottom-of-the-barrel filmic arena of the family film has risen to the top of the heap in terms of all-around accomplishment. Take the "Kung Fu Panda" films, for example. Fifteen or so years ago, the franchise title alone would've told you all you needed to know. Odds are it would've been a half-baked series of subpar Don Bluth animated films that no parent in their right mind would want to actually sit through it. How times have changed. In this day and age, the current crops of animated films are major cinematic affairs, spanning the demographic ranges of gender, age, ethnicity, and whatever else separates vast people groups. They are rendered in eye-popping computer animated 3-D, and feature the type of high-end celebrity vocal talent (whether the talent is appropriately cast or not) that appeals squarely to the non-children in the audience. More importantly, in the better efforts, the writing is legitimately sharp, witty, smart, and appealing in a way that most live action films are lacking.
Although I have been one of the loudest and most consistent proponents of Pixar as the crown jewel of computer animated storytelling and filmmaking, I must admit that certain challengers to the throne are looking more and more dignified all the time. Blue Sky Studios, makers of the "Ice Age" films, took a major technical leap forward with the predictable but nonetheless likeable "Rio" earlier this year. And now, Dreamworks Animation, home of the now burned-out "Shrek" series, is re-emerging from their recent quality slump with the "Kung Fu Panda" series.
When the first "Kung Fu Panda", arrived in the summer of 2008, it squared-off against Pixar's lofty message film "Wall-E". As a broad martial arts period comedy/talking animal film and Jack Black vehicle, it was easy to dismiss "Kung Fu Panda" at first glance. As a matter of fact, I admit that's exactly what I did. It wasn't until the movie hit the inexpensive local second run theater that I finally succumbed to the lingering positive critical and audience buzz it had been generating all summer long, and quickly conceded that it trumped the pompously cute yet heavy "Wall-E" as best CG animated feature of the summer.
For those who missed out, "Kung Fu Panda" is the story of an adopted, portly panda bear with self-esteem issues named Po (Jack Black). Set in an ancient China populated wholly by humanized talking animals, Po eventually overcomes insurmountable odds to take his place as an unlikely kung fu champion and hero - a far cry from his former humble existence in his father's noodle shop. What the film admittedly lacks in overall originality (in this age of constant super hero films and comic book movies, this is yet another zero-to-hero origin story) it more than makes up for in spark and vibrancy.
The makers of "Kung Fu Panda 2", particularly director Jennifer Yuh, have clearly gone to great effort to maintain the said spark and vibrancy of the first. With the venerable Guillermo Del Toro on board as a creative consultant and executive producer, it may come as no surprise that this first sequel effectively probes deeper into Po's emerging hero's journey and personal issues, evoking a truly fulfilling Campbellian archetype, but also remains fully viable as mainstream entertainment suitable for all ages. Yes, there is still an array of fat jokes at Po's expansive expense, and the overblown, overlong list of celebrity vocal talent is even longer this time around (just off the top of my head, the film co-stars Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Seth Rogan, Jackie Chan, David Cross, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Danny McBride... the list goes on and on). And maybe Jack Black's once-novel "hardcore" shtick is sounding a bit passed its prime, but the film wins out in the end. It is a solid effort that evokes not only some good laughs and thrills, but maybe even a tear or two. Along with Po, we learn more of his mysterious early years, fleshing out a classic hero's origin that modern audiences may associate various portions of with Superman and Spider-Man, among others.
In the story, an evil razor-feathered peacock with super-villain aspirations of ruling China channels the destructive capabilities of fireworks in his power play to overthrow the reigning hierarchy. Meanwhile Po, the still-new Dragon Warrior, is dividing his time between collaborating with the dynamic Furious Five (clever animal actualizations of the five animal fighting styles of certain martial arts), and his father's noodle shop. Just as he begins to question the authenticity of his birth to his goose father (he's yet to learn he's been adopted. Po may be the affable Dragon Warrior, but he's still not the sharpest tool in the shed), his martial arts master informs him that the time has come for the next phase of this training: mastering inner peace.
Talk about bad timing - just as Po learns the world-shattering truth of his adoption, he must mobilize against the tyrannical peacock and his minions to save China - and only through inner peace can he find victory. But inner peace is a far hope and nothing but an abstract concept for our pudgy protagonist. His struggle, through the lens of movie metaphor, is a legitimate and entirely relatable one. Like certain Pixar offerings, the film is not afraid to veer into territory that may be considered perhaps emotionally challenging, and that is completely to its credit.
"Kung Fu Panda 2", although it does bear a message (one that it isn't afraid to outright detail for the benefit of any younger and more dense viewers), it's not at all the usual patronizing refrain of "follow your heart" (gag!) or "love conquers all" (zzzz). The movie works as not only a family entertainment, but also as action spectacle and even a bit of epic mythmaking. It's also the funniest comedy of the summer so far (Sorry, "Hangover Part II"). While it's possible that Jack Black may've worn out his welcome with general audiences ("Gulliver's Travels", anyone?), "Kung Fu Panda" still has plenty of kick, and part two definitely brings the hardcore fireworks
When the first "Kung Fu Panda", arrived in the summer of 2008, it squared-off against Pixar's lofty message film "Wall-E". As a broad martial arts period comedy/talking animal film and Jack Black vehicle, it was easy to dismiss "Kung Fu Panda" at first glance. As a matter of fact, I admit that's exactly what I did. It wasn't until the movie hit the inexpensive local second run theater that I finally succumbed to the lingering positive critical and audience buzz it had been generating all summer long, and quickly conceded that it trumped the pompously cute yet heavy "Wall-E" as best CG animated feature of the summer.
For those who missed out, "Kung Fu Panda" is the story of an adopted, portly panda bear with self-esteem issues named Po (Jack Black). Set in an ancient China populated wholly by humanized talking animals, Po eventually overcomes insurmountable odds to take his place as an unlikely kung fu champion and hero - a far cry from his former humble existence in his father's noodle shop. What the film admittedly lacks in overall originality (in this age of constant super hero films and comic book movies, this is yet another zero-to-hero origin story) it more than makes up for in spark and vibrancy.
The makers of "Kung Fu Panda 2", particularly director Jennifer Yuh, have clearly gone to great effort to maintain the said spark and vibrancy of the first. With the venerable Guillermo Del Toro on board as a creative consultant and executive producer, it may come as no surprise that this first sequel effectively probes deeper into Po's emerging hero's journey and personal issues, evoking a truly fulfilling Campbellian archetype, but also remains fully viable as mainstream entertainment suitable for all ages. Yes, there is still an array of fat jokes at Po's expansive expense, and the overblown, overlong list of celebrity vocal talent is even longer this time around (just off the top of my head, the film co-stars Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Seth Rogan, Jackie Chan, David Cross, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Danny McBride... the list goes on and on). And maybe Jack Black's once-novel "hardcore" shtick is sounding a bit passed its prime, but the film wins out in the end. It is a solid effort that evokes not only some good laughs and thrills, but maybe even a tear or two. Along with Po, we learn more of his mysterious early years, fleshing out a classic hero's origin that modern audiences may associate various portions of with Superman and Spider-Man, among others.
In the story, an evil razor-feathered peacock with super-villain aspirations of ruling China channels the destructive capabilities of fireworks in his power play to overthrow the reigning hierarchy. Meanwhile Po, the still-new Dragon Warrior, is dividing his time between collaborating with the dynamic Furious Five (clever animal actualizations of the five animal fighting styles of certain martial arts), and his father's noodle shop. Just as he begins to question the authenticity of his birth to his goose father (he's yet to learn he's been adopted. Po may be the affable Dragon Warrior, but he's still not the sharpest tool in the shed), his martial arts master informs him that the time has come for the next phase of this training: mastering inner peace.
Talk about bad timing - just as Po learns the world-shattering truth of his adoption, he must mobilize against the tyrannical peacock and his minions to save China - and only through inner peace can he find victory. But inner peace is a far hope and nothing but an abstract concept for our pudgy protagonist. His struggle, through the lens of movie metaphor, is a legitimate and entirely relatable one. Like certain Pixar offerings, the film is not afraid to veer into territory that may be considered perhaps emotionally challenging, and that is completely to its credit.
"Kung Fu Panda 2", although it does bear a message (one that it isn't afraid to outright detail for the benefit of any younger and more dense viewers), it's not at all the usual patronizing refrain of "follow your heart" (gag!) or "love conquers all" (zzzz). The movie works as not only a family entertainment, but also as action spectacle and even a bit of epic mythmaking. It's also the funniest comedy of the summer so far (Sorry, "Hangover Part II"). While it's possible that Jack Black may've worn out his welcome with general audiences ("Gulliver's Travels", anyone?), "Kung Fu Panda" still has plenty of kick, and part two definitely brings the hardcore fireworks
The Hangover Part 2 Review
If you are reading this review, you are likely already strongly considering going to see "The Hangover Part II." Being a fan of the "Hangover" series is much like being a fan of the "Jackass" series — you either are a fan or you are not, with very few people labeling themselves as being somewhere in-between. The biggest question you probably have is whether or not the second entry in the series compares favorably to the first. The answer is yes, but it's a yes with a very large asterisk.
To label the two as different films is being rather generous to "The Hangover Part II" because the plot of the film is essentially the same as the plot of the first movie. There are almost no notable differences in the plot, other than the action takes places in Bangkok instead of Las Vegas.
Justin Bartha, who reprises his role as Doug, is just as underused in this film as he was in the first "Hangover". It's a shame that the film's director, Todd Phillips, doesn't seem to feel any kind of need to use Bartha more, because he's a very talented comedic actor, as evidenced by the fact he essentially carries the "National Treasure" series by himself.
His character Doug, however, has not gone missing in this film and instead the missing member of the group is Teddy (Mason Lee, who is director Ang Lee's son) which is a problem since Stu (Ed Helms) is supposed to be getting married to Teddy's older sister, Lauren (Jamie Chung).
If you've seen the first "Hangover" film, then you know exactly what to expect. There are no real surprises and the structure of the film is almost the exact same as the structure of the first one — I won't spoil the specifics, but let's just say that I'm having a lot of trouble thinking up any events from "Part II" that don't have a clear parallel from the first film.
You might be asking yourself why you should go see this journey to Bangkok if you've already seen the first film and the answer is pretty simple: despite its similarities to the original "Hangover," "The Hangover Part II" is still really funny. I found myself laughing out loud during the film more than I do during most films because the jokes are surprisingly fresh for a plot that is surprisingly recycled.
Alan, for example, is masterfully reprised by Zack Galifianakis and he is hilarious to watch on screen. He's given most of the punch lines that the script has to offer, but he also really makes the most of them. It seems like Galifianakis was tailor-made for the "Hangover" series and he deserves credit for nailing pretty much every line he's given. Despite the fact that Helms' character is the only one that ever seems to show any kind of sanity, Galifiankis is undoubtedly the anchor that makes the series work. While that may be a carry-over from the first film, it still works here, so it's not a reason to fault the film.
Likewise, Ken Jeong shows up again and provides a lot of laughs during his second encounter with the "Wolf Pack." Director Todd Phillips wisely recognized the fact that Jeong was somewhat underused in the first film and really increased his presence in "Part II" and the film benefits from that.
The hilarious Rob Riggle, however, is sadly missing and hopefully that's because he's being saved for a larger role in the future of the series.
It is difficult to describe how funny this film is without giving away any of the jokes themselves, but "The Hangover Part II" is a worthy companion to the first film. It may quite possibly have found a place in cinematic history as one of the least original films of all time. Luckily, however, it's also one of the funniest films of the past decade or so, which is why I feel comfortable awarding the film four stars out of five.
I realize that four stars is the same amount that I gave Todd Phillips' previous directorial effort, "Due Date," but note the similarity in rankings is a compliment to both films — while "Due Date" was a nicely original, but occasionally unfunny journey away from "The Hangover" despite the similarities in the cast and crew, "The Hangover Part II" sacrificed originality to avoid any of the duller moments that held back "Due Date" from being a truly great comedy. Both films have strengths and weaknesses, the problem is that both go too far in one direction and are prevented from being truly great films.
If you go out and buy a ticket for "Part II", you may feel a little bit of deja vu when you're watching it, but I can't imagine that you'll feel disappointed after you've left the theater. You'll have laughed too hard to care about anything else.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review
Setting sail for another adventure on the high seas, Captain Jack Sparrow returns to cinemas in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the fourth film in Disney’s popular franchise.
Borrowing elements from the Tim Powers novel On Stranger Tides, the fourth film in the Pirates series follows Captain Jack Sparrow on his quest to reach the Fountain of Youth.
However, he isn’t the only one with his eyes set on the mythical fountain. On his journey, Jack will cross paths with naval fleets, a mysterious woman from his past, and the most infamous pirate of all, the fearsome Blackbeard.
Unlike the previous entries in the series, On Stranger Tides is directed by Rob Marshall, director of the film adaptation of Chicago. Bringing his new viewpoint to the franchise, Marshall manages to pull off an entertaining adventure movie that feels closer to the original Pirates film.
Returning from the previous franchise entries are Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush as Hector Barbossa. Joining Depp and Rush are Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s Penélope Cruz as Angelica and Deadwood’s Ian McShane as Blackbeard. Overall, the cast delivers solid performances, but McShane’s heartless portrayal of Blackbeard is definitely the stand out.
Usually a high point of the films, the score from On Stranger Tides was surprisingly disappointing. As opposed to being unique and varied, much of the score was rehashed and recycled from the previous movies with completely original tracks feeling few and far apart.
However, there is much good to outweigh the bad as well. The visual effects, both computer and makeup, are worth mentioning. From the fearsome mermaids and the intimidating zombies to Blackbeard’s fire-breathing ship and a certain scene involving gravity defying water, the effects in the film were fantastic, even if they were used in some rather odd sequences.
Overall, the film surpasses the previous two entries in the series, but still can’t come close to hitting the quality of Curse of the Black Pearl.
With a 7 out of 10, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is an entertaining popcorn movie that doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t.
Borrowing elements from the Tim Powers novel On Stranger Tides, the fourth film in the Pirates series follows Captain Jack Sparrow on his quest to reach the Fountain of Youth.
However, he isn’t the only one with his eyes set on the mythical fountain. On his journey, Jack will cross paths with naval fleets, a mysterious woman from his past, and the most infamous pirate of all, the fearsome Blackbeard.
Unlike the previous entries in the series, On Stranger Tides is directed by Rob Marshall, director of the film adaptation of Chicago. Bringing his new viewpoint to the franchise, Marshall manages to pull off an entertaining adventure movie that feels closer to the original Pirates film.
Returning from the previous franchise entries are Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush as Hector Barbossa. Joining Depp and Rush are Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s Penélope Cruz as Angelica and Deadwood’s Ian McShane as Blackbeard. Overall, the cast delivers solid performances, but McShane’s heartless portrayal of Blackbeard is definitely the stand out.
Usually a high point of the films, the score from On Stranger Tides was surprisingly disappointing. As opposed to being unique and varied, much of the score was rehashed and recycled from the previous movies with completely original tracks feeling few and far apart.
However, there is much good to outweigh the bad as well. The visual effects, both computer and makeup, are worth mentioning. From the fearsome mermaids and the intimidating zombies to Blackbeard’s fire-breathing ship and a certain scene involving gravity defying water, the effects in the film were fantastic, even if they were used in some rather odd sequences.
Overall, the film surpasses the previous two entries in the series, but still can’t come close to hitting the quality of Curse of the Black Pearl.
With a 7 out of 10, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is an entertaining popcorn movie that doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)