Not too long ago, maybe two issues back of Time Magazine there was an article by Richard Corliss regarding his thoughts and feelings on why critics exist. You see, every so often critics come under fire from Hollywood for being jaded or blah blah blah, essentially not liking their films and therefore giving bad publicity and ruining a film before it even comes out if they can. Yet, Hollywood and most people have learned that critics are often ignored by the paying public as to what films to watch. The original defense for critics created by one of Corliss' predecessors is that film critics make no claim to being able to judge box office or how well a film will do, they are their to determine what films are considered great films in the canon of films. Now, this is true and yet it is also incredibly elitist assuming that the general paying public is a bunch of morons who wouldn't know art if it bit them in the ankle and then jumped up and down a bit. We, as a society, require film critics to apparently tell us what will be the next Casablanca and what films we should study and learn from. Now, although I agree that most of the paying public is too forgiving and usually insensitive to good films and willing to settle for decent, I won't say that they are ALL morons. This excuse was originally employed by a professional well-known film critic in response to trashing James Cameron's Titanic piece of crap. Cameron then came out after the movie had broken all of the box office records whining about how critics were obviously elitist and out of touch with reality since his film had done SO well and wanted the critic fired. Instead of apologizing and saying I'm wrong, the defense was, well, the movie sucked as a movie but the public loved it, what you gonna do? This is the same defense Corliss uses when defending his and many other "professional" film critics choice to destroy the recent films 300 and Ghost Rider. While I agree to this assessment that film critics are needed to help the quality of Hollywood improve for its own sake and they are not an accurate measuring stick for box office intake, the real question then becomes what is the point of having film critics in popular writings if their goal is so elitist? Surely they are more apt to be useful in a cinema magazine or in a paper dedicated to the arts, but the New York Times? Washington Post? Newspaper subscriptions have fallen exponentially over the years as people have become less and less willing to pay for the news, leaving papers with two routes, either go high brow to capture and hold onto the intelligent hardcore, or try and dumb down and spread out to grab as many potential readers as possible. I know when I started off trying to break into journalism, I was told to cover local theater only and then told not to bother because they decided it was too highbrow to review theatrical performances. The question really is, how come the Post and the Times employ critics instead of reviewers? People whose job is to guess how much the audience will like or dislike a film? Well, they kind of do. It's true that critics are a snobby bunch, but one look at Rotten tomatoes reviews for a film will show critics thoughts which can veer wildly away from each other. I remember looking and finding a couple of really positive reviews of Ultraviolet before I saw it and laughed at the film so hard I cried. Many critics have to write so much that finding that perfect take or entrance into a piece could be really difficult. Besides, sometimes critics are fanboys as well. God knows if Arrested Development was made into a movie as had been talked about at one point, the critics would have covered it like fanboys do Spiderman 3 or Transformers. I think the real reason critics are necessary, as hard as this is for Hollywood to stomach, is that they are here to delineate the amazing movies from the rest of the so-so to pretty good schlock churned out each year. If you asked someone for a top 50 movie list, there is a good possibility that some films they have never seen but heard of as being one of the "greats" will be on there such as Gone with the Wind or The Maltese Falcon. The difference is that when you ask a critic for the top 50, you know you are getting a much more accurate and better top 50 than you would from asking some random person. Critics have to try and figure out what films are better than others without allowing taste and current appeal to factor into their decisions. I think that their real problem is that everyone wants to be a critic and not a reviewer and so many people end up sullying the title critic by writing film reviews. Myself, I'm part both. I pump movies I like and I get excited about certain characteristics of films such as Edward Norton or Christopher Nolan. Yet, I do my best to try and see the film as if I was someone in film school or down the line several years and what they would think. What some people might not know is I have an unadulterated love for cheesy 80's to early 90's flicks like 3 Ninjas, Mr. Nanny, Surf Ninjas, the Pee Wee movie, and oh so many more. Although I can easily agree that all of these films are terrible! With the exception of 3 Ninjas, the first one, you know with the pepper coffee filter trick things and the crazy forest acrobatics, which is decent. Instead, because I do not devote myself 100% to the elitist cause of film critics nor do I wish to degrade myself to simply guessing what the audience should like, I am somewhere in between the two main categories and the new third one dubbed the fanboy. The Times magazine has some interesting news based on the rise of what it called "fanboy" critics like aintitcool.com and joblo.com which hype and cover films from more of a populist standpoint and to which the success of 300 seems to have been more or less directly related. Thes sites are fanboy sites because if you notice they go out of their way to cover the most minute details of things like who will voice Optimus Prime? Does Batman's suit really outline his nipples? And who in the world thought it was a good idea to let Uwe Boll touch ANYTHING? As much as I revel in the minute detail provided by these websites regarding such seemingly insignificant material based on beloved franchises and figures, I also realize that at the end of the day, only the acting, directing, and visual presentation matter. Certain things may irk me as a fan, but films are not made for fans, they are made for everyone. Films just like to gain fans support because the fans will spread word of mouth and hype before it opens. Therefore,although I refuse to hype much before the release of a film, I will certainly go out of my way in person to hit you up with inane knowledge long lost to all but the most virulent and detailed driven loser...errr, explorer. I think by combining my love of films and my nerdiness with my criticism and trying to find a middle ground for the average theatregoer, I am providing a good medium ground that could hopefully satisfy any sane human being by explaining my reasoning in clear and concise manner. Although you know what, Little Miss Sunshine still sucked. :) Let the HATE BEGIN!!!
Wannabe
Monday, April 30, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Frequency
'Frequency's quality is all but'
You know, Dennis Quaid has just never been an appealing lead man for me. He's never BAD, but he just looks perfect for the perfect husband role or occassionally the good-hearted Grizzly Adams type. Has he ever played a villain?! Which is probably why it shocked me so much to see Frequency, not because he is a villain, but because he pulls off badass and the daring risk taker type so well with a decent New York accent. Then again, he is the protective loving father type...so, there.
The movie is directed by Gregory Hoblit from a script by Toby Emmerich. It is about a boy whose father is a daring firefighter whom grows up to find out that his old AM radio can communicate with his father from 30 years ago when the Aurora Borealis (a phenomenon!) appears overhead...yea, its a lame setup. In fact, most of the science in the movie is poorly explained, but then again Hollywood is notorious for not paying any attention to flaws in scripts when it comes to movies dealing with time. So, the son tries to convince his dad of certain things, saves his dad from a deadly fire and changes the future. Then, because the dad was safe, a murderer known as the Nightingale murderer continues to kill people, including the son's mom so the dad and older son team up to stop the killer before it happens. The one thing I will say about the writing for the script is that Toby Emmerich has a good ear for dialogue and accent, knows how to write a gripping story and obviously LOVES baseball. He is also has a good sense of family and community as the whole reconciling son with still living father thing is well done. But like I said, this guy sucks at science fiction. The story even contradicts itself in several places hoping that you won't notice by skipping on ahead to it's predicted cheesier father-son moments. With that said, as long as Emmerich stays away from sci-fi pretexts, especially time, he should be okay. At least this movie understood that if you change the future every one in the present will change too and not remember the previous timeline...although apparently the son does for some UNEXPLAINED REASON.
As for the acting, well, Quaid really surprised me and I bet he is a much better actor than people give him credit for. If only he'd take some riskier parts occassionally, although he is definately the perfect dad. Then there is his son, played by "Jesus" Jim Caviezel in one of his earlier roles. He kind of mopes through out the whole movie and his love life is screwed quickly with very little attention to it. But at least he gets the bereaved son turned cop glad to save his father bit down. The bad guy played by Shawn Doyle is just plain crazy. I can't give too much away, but man this guy is good at playing a stone cold killer when he has to. Lastly, I want to give a shout out to my main man Andre Braugher who plays Satch. I loved watching you on Homicide man, you are the coolest police officer out there and obviously a talented actor. If I make a film, I'll come find you and pull a Tarantino on your ass. The acting is pretty good for the most part and you will be so surprised by Quaid's ability to be a firefighter that you probably won't notice the lack of personality change in Caviezel. Now just think, several years down the road from this Caviezel will play the bad guy in another pseudo okay time movie called Deja Vu...hmmmm.
I have to give props to the director for what is obviously a flawed and probably exasperating script to work with and making a decent popcorn flick out of it. It's true, you might like slow motion dropping objects a bit much but all is forgiven in having a cast that can do the part well and in doing a great job of differentiating the timelines for the characters and in the process of updating memories and adding furniture after a big event happens. Although I'm still confused if time changed or if the two timelines are funning parallel to each other because it seems as if Caviezel and Quaid are running on the same time schedule. You were smart though and made the movie about the struggle of a son to save his father and put a lot of time on their interactions to make us care about the characters and their funny accents. I congratulate you on that and I hope that all future endeavors have a better thought out script for you to make magic with. Good job.
Conclusion:
The script has a lot of pros but it's cons are highly noticeable and can throw you out of the mood and the believability of the story. Thankfully Quaid does a great job and shines as does the rest of the cast and the directing is so top notch that it is quickly forgiven in order to follow the gripping turns and hope that all will end A-OKAY. Nowhere near brilliant or amazing, but definately good to be studid by all directors out there with cruddy scripts wondering how to make a GOOD movie out of it. Give it a shot some time if you are weak stomached and want a good gripping tale. Otherwise, see it for Jesus...:)
3.3 out of 5
Wannabe
You know, Dennis Quaid has just never been an appealing lead man for me. He's never BAD, but he just looks perfect for the perfect husband role or occassionally the good-hearted Grizzly Adams type. Has he ever played a villain?! Which is probably why it shocked me so much to see Frequency, not because he is a villain, but because he pulls off badass and the daring risk taker type so well with a decent New York accent. Then again, he is the protective loving father type...so, there.
The movie is directed by Gregory Hoblit from a script by Toby Emmerich. It is about a boy whose father is a daring firefighter whom grows up to find out that his old AM radio can communicate with his father from 30 years ago when the Aurora Borealis (a phenomenon!) appears overhead...yea, its a lame setup. In fact, most of the science in the movie is poorly explained, but then again Hollywood is notorious for not paying any attention to flaws in scripts when it comes to movies dealing with time. So, the son tries to convince his dad of certain things, saves his dad from a deadly fire and changes the future. Then, because the dad was safe, a murderer known as the Nightingale murderer continues to kill people, including the son's mom so the dad and older son team up to stop the killer before it happens. The one thing I will say about the writing for the script is that Toby Emmerich has a good ear for dialogue and accent, knows how to write a gripping story and obviously LOVES baseball. He is also has a good sense of family and community as the whole reconciling son with still living father thing is well done. But like I said, this guy sucks at science fiction. The story even contradicts itself in several places hoping that you won't notice by skipping on ahead to it's predicted cheesier father-son moments. With that said, as long as Emmerich stays away from sci-fi pretexts, especially time, he should be okay. At least this movie understood that if you change the future every one in the present will change too and not remember the previous timeline...although apparently the son does for some UNEXPLAINED REASON.
As for the acting, well, Quaid really surprised me and I bet he is a much better actor than people give him credit for. If only he'd take some riskier parts occassionally, although he is definately the perfect dad. Then there is his son, played by "Jesus" Jim Caviezel in one of his earlier roles. He kind of mopes through out the whole movie and his love life is screwed quickly with very little attention to it. But at least he gets the bereaved son turned cop glad to save his father bit down. The bad guy played by Shawn Doyle is just plain crazy. I can't give too much away, but man this guy is good at playing a stone cold killer when he has to. Lastly, I want to give a shout out to my main man Andre Braugher who plays Satch. I loved watching you on Homicide man, you are the coolest police officer out there and obviously a talented actor. If I make a film, I'll come find you and pull a Tarantino on your ass. The acting is pretty good for the most part and you will be so surprised by Quaid's ability to be a firefighter that you probably won't notice the lack of personality change in Caviezel. Now just think, several years down the road from this Caviezel will play the bad guy in another pseudo okay time movie called Deja Vu...hmmmm.
I have to give props to the director for what is obviously a flawed and probably exasperating script to work with and making a decent popcorn flick out of it. It's true, you might like slow motion dropping objects a bit much but all is forgiven in having a cast that can do the part well and in doing a great job of differentiating the timelines for the characters and in the process of updating memories and adding furniture after a big event happens. Although I'm still confused if time changed or if the two timelines are funning parallel to each other because it seems as if Caviezel and Quaid are running on the same time schedule. You were smart though and made the movie about the struggle of a son to save his father and put a lot of time on their interactions to make us care about the characters and their funny accents. I congratulate you on that and I hope that all future endeavors have a better thought out script for you to make magic with. Good job.
Conclusion:
The script has a lot of pros but it's cons are highly noticeable and can throw you out of the mood and the believability of the story. Thankfully Quaid does a great job and shines as does the rest of the cast and the directing is so top notch that it is quickly forgiven in order to follow the gripping turns and hope that all will end A-OKAY. Nowhere near brilliant or amazing, but definately good to be studid by all directors out there with cruddy scripts wondering how to make a GOOD movie out of it. Give it a shot some time if you are weak stomached and want a good gripping tale. Otherwise, see it for Jesus...:)
3.3 out of 5
Wannabe
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Scarlet Avenger
Okay, so this is highly unorthodox for me but since the director is a struggling film director and the short pretty good, I figured I'd help out in spreading the word. The short film is a little less than 30 minutes called The Scarlet Avenger and is modeled after the old television serials like The Flash and Superman which starred George Reeves who was recently played by Ben Affleck in the so-so movie Hollywoodland. After having seen the film, it does an excellent job of maintaining the lighting and the sense of early film as the old serials did. Even a lot of the characterizations and the dialogue was spot on with the early days of television. It was also nice to see a lot of camera work with the zooms and cloesups and random cuts and especially the fun circle matte edits. It's plainly obvious that the director did his homework enough to construct the prototypical serial story and be able to film it correctly. I would actually like to see more if it if given the chance with some characterization thrown in that wasn't haphazard feeling due to time constraints. Also, the actors needed a little work as did some of the editing and dialogue. I noticed a couple of times where characters would say things like damn or dang which dang is too modern of a word and damn would NEVER have been permitted by the censors from back then. Just my pickiness though, I'm sure. The editing though is really good until you get into some of the action sequences where the placement of things simply don't make sense and a lot of cuts are made to simply make a lot of cuts to make it feel jumpy and energetic, which is good but could have been handled slightly better. As for the actors, well, its obvious they weren't fighters. Also, if this is a loving spoof, it wasn't that much of a spoof, tried a couple of times but didn't succeed. The actors just weren't as familiar with the style as the script required. Perhaps many episodes of Adam West as Batman would have helped them. Either way, I love the Skull and the scenery and costumes are all quite elaborate for such a production. The story is fun and its a nice nostalgic romp through serial land. I vote that you go see it on YouTube and then email the guy about possibly making it a bunch of webisodes in a similar vein to Red VS Blue.
3.8 out of 5
Wannabe
3.8 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Man for All Seasons
CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT! CLASSIC ALERT!
Before anything else regarding this awesome movie, let me just say that a good arthouse cinema is invaluable to society. I have just recently discovered the joys of such at AFI Silver by buying a draft Yuengling, watching an aged print of a classic film so messed up you feel like you are watching an old grindhouse film, then having it followed by a local film historian/critic discussing its significance and the brilliance of the director. Although the print stunk, the quality of the experience is so superior to anything else that it makes up for any problems that may arise. If you have an "artsy" cinema in your area find out about any festivals they have coming up and if they have none but just show art films, try talking to them about arranging some. Seriously, it's incredibly worth it.
As for the film, well, okay yes. It's a good film by an exquisite director named Fred Zinnemann who also directed Oklahoma! and High Noon. The problem for me is that it stars Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More and if you haven't had the Scofield experience, spare yourself. Yes, he has presence and yes, he is a pretty good, maybe even a great actor, but my GOD! His voice is so monotone it convinces me that everyone in the theater who isn't screaming and groaning from the pain caused to their ears are hypnotized little lemurs. Actually Scofield does a good job of playing a wise man More with a quick wit and strong sensibilities and logic. The king, Henry the VIII is played ferociously crazy, loud, boisterous, and bold by the great actor Robert Shaw. Relative unkown Leo McKern is astounding as the manipulative and vendictive Cromwell. Orson Welles also turns in a great performance as the overweight sleazy Cardinal Wosley. Plus, if that doesn't give you an idea as to the quality of the acting performances, it also has two small performances by two of the Redgrave clan, Vanessa and Corin. I bet you can use that as a measuring stick for how well it is liked by the critics, like one Redgrave is pretty good to decent, two equals great film and three to four = mind blowing. If there is ever 5 Redgraves in one film be prepared for the apocalypse. Interestingly, one thing I noticed from all the performers is that they all have a commanding voice. They make you hear them which makes sense since they all originated on the stage and developed acting voices. There is no wimpy wheeze or whisper thin voice. Each actor knows how to use his/her voice to be heard and it shows. Even Scofield's monotone has a quiet mania inherent in it that forces you to pay attention like Hopkins playing Lecter.
Besides the stellar if occassionally over acted performances by the great cast, the story itself is very interesting. It is based off of a play by the same name written by Robert Bolt who also wrote the screenplay. It is a show based around Sir Thomas More's rise and fall during Henry VIII's reign and turns More into martyr/Christ tale whose main focus is on the judicial system and what it means to oppose a dictator. So there, that's what you need to know. If you don't see the Christ similarities, then you aren't looking hard enough. While this seems obvious and not very deep besides showing a lot of pity for Catholics, especially the old English Catholics that didn't convert too well, it does mask the true qustion of the film by adding an extra layer of fun discovery. Through More's resignation and silent refusal to approve or deny Henry's right to marry Anne Boleyn, it asks the question of how is opposition perceived and what is necessary to maintain order in a country shaken by a strong leader? Granted, I didn't really realize all of this until the nice critic discussed the show, however it did make sense after listening a bit.
If nothing else, this film struck me with its age through the overpowering beauty and care in which each shot was composed. The scenic designer obviously understood the importance of texture in each scene. The background is constantly textured and feels vibrant and natural to the period setting of the movie. The director carefully plans each shot and the framing is done well. Hell, a movie that can succeed at being a visual medium is amazing. Zinnemann starts the movie off by having the first minute or so be complete silence, no voices at least, and yt it is still visually interesting and not boring at all, like a great silent film. Zinnemann maintains this visual acuity throughout the film through his editing and by carfully planning his shots. Unfortunately, in this print(not the director's fault) there are a couple of plot points that get skipped over due to the wear of it. Plus there are numerous scratches and color fades and most of the time the film suffered from a red tinge. Despite these technical difficulties, it is obvious how carefully Bolt and Zinnemann adapted the play to the screen and how well they did it by inserting moments that fit the characters into the film that could only be accomplished on film. Although the film still maintains the wit and quick dialogue of the play and the film is about words and the lack of words, Zinnemann has done the amazing by turning a story in a medium about language into a story that merges language and action into one indivisible tale. The only problem came from a scene where it is broad daylight but the actors pretend like it is night time and also from the fact that apparently Zinnemann isn't afraid of letting his actors scream. The screaming all the time is a bit much on the speakers and ears, but it quickly becomes just a part of the movie.
Conclusion:
The acting at times is a bit much and Scofield has that friggin monotone going strong. On the whole though they all have presence and know their characters in and out. Hell, Scofield even won an award for his performance. The direction and adaptation of the play is superbly and impeccably done. The film is truly a visual medium and the story, although fairly simple, does ask some interesting questions given the time in which this film was made. The biggest drawback besides one or two inconsistencies and a fairly straight forward story is that the film requires a good healthy knowledge of history and a love of dialogue to enjoy. The average film goer today will not enjoy seeing the thrill of the clash between More and Cromwell nor the rise of Richard Rich without knowing the history of England. Plus the heavy and fast paced witty dialogue requires at times a knowledge of the living conditions and customs of the day and as my aunt said, it could take awhile to get used to the actor's british accent if you're an American...But definately a classic and a very good film, although I doubt given this director's pedigree that it is his best.
4.0 out of 5
Wannabe
Before anything else regarding this awesome movie, let me just say that a good arthouse cinema is invaluable to society. I have just recently discovered the joys of such at AFI Silver by buying a draft Yuengling, watching an aged print of a classic film so messed up you feel like you are watching an old grindhouse film, then having it followed by a local film historian/critic discussing its significance and the brilliance of the director. Although the print stunk, the quality of the experience is so superior to anything else that it makes up for any problems that may arise. If you have an "artsy" cinema in your area find out about any festivals they have coming up and if they have none but just show art films, try talking to them about arranging some. Seriously, it's incredibly worth it.
As for the film, well, okay yes. It's a good film by an exquisite director named Fred Zinnemann who also directed Oklahoma! and High Noon. The problem for me is that it stars Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More and if you haven't had the Scofield experience, spare yourself. Yes, he has presence and yes, he is a pretty good, maybe even a great actor, but my GOD! His voice is so monotone it convinces me that everyone in the theater who isn't screaming and groaning from the pain caused to their ears are hypnotized little lemurs. Actually Scofield does a good job of playing a wise man More with a quick wit and strong sensibilities and logic. The king, Henry the VIII is played ferociously crazy, loud, boisterous, and bold by the great actor Robert Shaw. Relative unkown Leo McKern is astounding as the manipulative and vendictive Cromwell. Orson Welles also turns in a great performance as the overweight sleazy Cardinal Wosley. Plus, if that doesn't give you an idea as to the quality of the acting performances, it also has two small performances by two of the Redgrave clan, Vanessa and Corin. I bet you can use that as a measuring stick for how well it is liked by the critics, like one Redgrave is pretty good to decent, two equals great film and three to four = mind blowing. If there is ever 5 Redgraves in one film be prepared for the apocalypse. Interestingly, one thing I noticed from all the performers is that they all have a commanding voice. They make you hear them which makes sense since they all originated on the stage and developed acting voices. There is no wimpy wheeze or whisper thin voice. Each actor knows how to use his/her voice to be heard and it shows. Even Scofield's monotone has a quiet mania inherent in it that forces you to pay attention like Hopkins playing Lecter.
Besides the stellar if occassionally over acted performances by the great cast, the story itself is very interesting. It is based off of a play by the same name written by Robert Bolt who also wrote the screenplay. It is a show based around Sir Thomas More's rise and fall during Henry VIII's reign and turns More into martyr/Christ tale whose main focus is on the judicial system and what it means to oppose a dictator. So there, that's what you need to know. If you don't see the Christ similarities, then you aren't looking hard enough. While this seems obvious and not very deep besides showing a lot of pity for Catholics, especially the old English Catholics that didn't convert too well, it does mask the true qustion of the film by adding an extra layer of fun discovery. Through More's resignation and silent refusal to approve or deny Henry's right to marry Anne Boleyn, it asks the question of how is opposition perceived and what is necessary to maintain order in a country shaken by a strong leader? Granted, I didn't really realize all of this until the nice critic discussed the show, however it did make sense after listening a bit.
If nothing else, this film struck me with its age through the overpowering beauty and care in which each shot was composed. The scenic designer obviously understood the importance of texture in each scene. The background is constantly textured and feels vibrant and natural to the period setting of the movie. The director carefully plans each shot and the framing is done well. Hell, a movie that can succeed at being a visual medium is amazing. Zinnemann starts the movie off by having the first minute or so be complete silence, no voices at least, and yt it is still visually interesting and not boring at all, like a great silent film. Zinnemann maintains this visual acuity throughout the film through his editing and by carfully planning his shots. Unfortunately, in this print(not the director's fault) there are a couple of plot points that get skipped over due to the wear of it. Plus there are numerous scratches and color fades and most of the time the film suffered from a red tinge. Despite these technical difficulties, it is obvious how carefully Bolt and Zinnemann adapted the play to the screen and how well they did it by inserting moments that fit the characters into the film that could only be accomplished on film. Although the film still maintains the wit and quick dialogue of the play and the film is about words and the lack of words, Zinnemann has done the amazing by turning a story in a medium about language into a story that merges language and action into one indivisible tale. The only problem came from a scene where it is broad daylight but the actors pretend like it is night time and also from the fact that apparently Zinnemann isn't afraid of letting his actors scream. The screaming all the time is a bit much on the speakers and ears, but it quickly becomes just a part of the movie.
Conclusion:
The acting at times is a bit much and Scofield has that friggin monotone going strong. On the whole though they all have presence and know their characters in and out. Hell, Scofield even won an award for his performance. The direction and adaptation of the play is superbly and impeccably done. The film is truly a visual medium and the story, although fairly simple, does ask some interesting questions given the time in which this film was made. The biggest drawback besides one or two inconsistencies and a fairly straight forward story is that the film requires a good healthy knowledge of history and a love of dialogue to enjoy. The average film goer today will not enjoy seeing the thrill of the clash between More and Cromwell nor the rise of Richard Rich without knowing the history of England. Plus the heavy and fast paced witty dialogue requires at times a knowledge of the living conditions and customs of the day and as my aunt said, it could take awhile to get used to the actor's british accent if you're an American...But definately a classic and a very good film, although I doubt given this director's pedigree that it is his best.
4.0 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, April 9, 2007
The Prestige
'characters lack Prestige'
If you know me, then you know I love Christopher Nolan. I honestly believe he is the best director with the most unique vision and style out of all the new young directors. He made his mark way back in Memento and catapulted to fame and he shows a penchant for using editing techniques and scenic design to draw an audience into his character's psyche. He followed up Memento with Insomnia and then Batman Begins. My problem with Christopher Nolan is never with his directing or with his casting, it is usually with his scripts which are either spot-on or just flawed enough to make me disappointed. For example, few can argue that The Following, Memento, and Batman Begins are badly written. Insomnia, though not a bad film, doesn't reach the same caliber and quality of his other films in terms of script-to-screen vision. The same can be said now of The Prestige. The flaw with The Prestige is that it is essentially about two magicians in a dangerous game of one-upmanship that ultimately leads to their demise. The film is about obsession and the lengths it takes people, unfortunately, obsession in two despicable people is not as entertainig nor as interesting as I think it was for Christopher Nolan to explore it.
The plot starts with two magicians in training working for Michael Caine played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. Bale screws up one of his knots and Jackman's wife dies in a trick gone wrong. Jackman blasts off two of Bale's fingers, etc. Along the way Scarlett Johannson shows up as a magician aide which both men fall in love with and Bale has a wife and daughter. Oh yeah, and Hugh Jackman goes to see Tessla played brilliantly by David Bowie. At the heart of the story though, is a tale of two magicians struggling to figure out each other's tricks and then how to destroy the other one to be the premiere magician in all of London. In doing so, they both sacrifice perhaps a little too much to create a climactic ending. The flaw is that in a story about two people fighting each other back and forth, the ending of a climactic resolution is an easy one to see coming and someone obviously has to die. The other problem is that since they are both so despicable in their obsession, as an audience member I don't really care which of them dies. My wife was glad to see David Bowie because it at least broke up the monotonous back and forth of the action between Jackman and Bale. Lastly, the film's story is very convoluted as I found I was the only one in a room of 5 intelligent people who had any idea what had actually occurred. I like complex films, but the story is really simple so the convolution of the story is completely unneccessary. The beauty of the script though is how the story and action of the film is all tied up neatly in a package with excellent foreshadowing before hand of the prestige (the final return of something in a trick). The film ties up everything within the world of being a magician starting off literally and ending metaphorically to create a movie that is certainly good for analysis for film techniques and devices used in creating film literature.
Also, It is well done regarding the backstage aspects of magic and it reveals some possible ways to do some old interesting tricks.
Now for the acting. There are some good and some bad things about this film although Bale is not one of them. Bale brings depth and a multitude of attitudes to this film despite a seemingly 2 dimensional character. The same cannot be said of Hugh Jackman who vibrates between angry revenge and unhealthy obsession throughout the whole of the film. The women played by Scarlett Johannson and Rebecca Hall do a fine job, although they are not fleshed out characters. Johannson has a moment or two but it seems like a waste of money to hire someone famous as her since Hall does just as well in just as high a profile role. Then there is Michael Caine and David Bowie. I have to say, David Bowie might have just made his career highlight in this film. He's perfect! So quirky, I friggin love it more than ring-pops! And Michael Caine, well...does he ever actually do a bad job? exactly.
Conclusion:Nolan shows his usual penchant of interesting scenes and great cinematography mixed with great editing skills, but the script, although beautiful, did need several rewrites or a good touch-up at least. The actors do fine given their narrowly defined roles with Bale doing extremely well by breaking out of the confines as much as possible to give the character a rounder edge. This film came out around the same time as The Illusionist and although this has more of a star studded cast and darker tone(I likey), The Illusionist is a film that will and probably does appeal to more people and is better than this one. Although, this is still a damn good film and Bowie fans everywhere should unite and see it.
3.7 out of 5
Wannabe
If you know me, then you know I love Christopher Nolan. I honestly believe he is the best director with the most unique vision and style out of all the new young directors. He made his mark way back in Memento and catapulted to fame and he shows a penchant for using editing techniques and scenic design to draw an audience into his character's psyche. He followed up Memento with Insomnia and then Batman Begins. My problem with Christopher Nolan is never with his directing or with his casting, it is usually with his scripts which are either spot-on or just flawed enough to make me disappointed. For example, few can argue that The Following, Memento, and Batman Begins are badly written. Insomnia, though not a bad film, doesn't reach the same caliber and quality of his other films in terms of script-to-screen vision. The same can be said now of The Prestige. The flaw with The Prestige is that it is essentially about two magicians in a dangerous game of one-upmanship that ultimately leads to their demise. The film is about obsession and the lengths it takes people, unfortunately, obsession in two despicable people is not as entertainig nor as interesting as I think it was for Christopher Nolan to explore it.
The plot starts with two magicians in training working for Michael Caine played by Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. Bale screws up one of his knots and Jackman's wife dies in a trick gone wrong. Jackman blasts off two of Bale's fingers, etc. Along the way Scarlett Johannson shows up as a magician aide which both men fall in love with and Bale has a wife and daughter. Oh yeah, and Hugh Jackman goes to see Tessla played brilliantly by David Bowie. At the heart of the story though, is a tale of two magicians struggling to figure out each other's tricks and then how to destroy the other one to be the premiere magician in all of London. In doing so, they both sacrifice perhaps a little too much to create a climactic ending. The flaw is that in a story about two people fighting each other back and forth, the ending of a climactic resolution is an easy one to see coming and someone obviously has to die. The other problem is that since they are both so despicable in their obsession, as an audience member I don't really care which of them dies. My wife was glad to see David Bowie because it at least broke up the monotonous back and forth of the action between Jackman and Bale. Lastly, the film's story is very convoluted as I found I was the only one in a room of 5 intelligent people who had any idea what had actually occurred. I like complex films, but the story is really simple so the convolution of the story is completely unneccessary. The beauty of the script though is how the story and action of the film is all tied up neatly in a package with excellent foreshadowing before hand of the prestige (the final return of something in a trick). The film ties up everything within the world of being a magician starting off literally and ending metaphorically to create a movie that is certainly good for analysis for film techniques and devices used in creating film literature.
Also, It is well done regarding the backstage aspects of magic and it reveals some possible ways to do some old interesting tricks.
Now for the acting. There are some good and some bad things about this film although Bale is not one of them. Bale brings depth and a multitude of attitudes to this film despite a seemingly 2 dimensional character. The same cannot be said of Hugh Jackman who vibrates between angry revenge and unhealthy obsession throughout the whole of the film. The women played by Scarlett Johannson and Rebecca Hall do a fine job, although they are not fleshed out characters. Johannson has a moment or two but it seems like a waste of money to hire someone famous as her since Hall does just as well in just as high a profile role. Then there is Michael Caine and David Bowie. I have to say, David Bowie might have just made his career highlight in this film. He's perfect! So quirky, I friggin love it more than ring-pops! And Michael Caine, well...does he ever actually do a bad job? exactly.
Conclusion:Nolan shows his usual penchant of interesting scenes and great cinematography mixed with great editing skills, but the script, although beautiful, did need several rewrites or a good touch-up at least. The actors do fine given their narrowly defined roles with Bale doing extremely well by breaking out of the confines as much as possible to give the character a rounder edge. This film came out around the same time as The Illusionist and although this has more of a star studded cast and darker tone(I likey), The Illusionist is a film that will and probably does appeal to more people and is better than this one. Although, this is still a damn good film and Bowie fans everywhere should unite and see it.
3.7 out of 5
Wannabe
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Proposition
Western Week Part II
I have been waiting for some time to see this film, ever since I heard it was written by Nick Cave of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds. It also helped that it has Guy Pearce (who I am convinced is probably one of the best character actors in the world) and received some rave reviews. Plus, this is the first western that I know of based in Australia. All things I find fascinating and interesting and that pay off beautifully in this film.
The film starts with a bunch of pictures of people back when England was trying to "civilize" Australia by exporting all of its criminals to it. After the opening credits though, all introductions to the world are off as we are thrust into the middle of a down and dirty shootout between Pearce, his younger brother, and the cops. After being caught, the proposition is this, if Guy Pearce brings back or kills his older brother, then his younger brother may live but he only has til Christmas. This is very ironic since in Australia, Christmas is as hot as Mississippi in the summer. The setup of the story is good and there are some traditional archetypes that have been coopted to fit the new arrangement of a western in Australia, such as the slaves being local aboriginals instead of Africans. The storyline regarding Guy Pearce's character could be interesting enough to hold the film, then you add in the extra trouble of the commanding captains problems with his own men and his wife played by the lovely Emma Watson and you have two adjacent storylines all tied to the one moment of letting Pearce free to kill his brother. The story is fascinating also because of the history inherent in it. Pearce and his brothers are all Irish and consequently the townspeople are English which is an age old rivalry and well done in this film's accents. Westerns are about a place and Cave ties this western beautifully to the old harsh rugged landscape of Australia. Pearce's older brother is a monster who hangs out with an aboriginal man, a woman, and another bloodthirsty man named Samuel Stote in some caves in the Aboriginy infested no-mans land. Pearce's older brother is as ruthless and depraved and his younger brother is naive and young. Things of course only get worse once the younger brother receives 40 lashes. The twists and turns and the crisp dialogue keep the pace moving brilliantly and the tension mounting. The characters are all drawn well and the depraved acts committed by Arthur Burns and his band wipe away any traces of care for his character. Imagine Hannibal Lecter in west with a crew and you'd understand how freaky it is to see such an intelligent man who harps about family turn around and kill slowly so as to enjoy it.
As for directing, every scene is well composed, the editing is crisp and clean, and the visceral feel of the film is astounding. The lighting, costume design, and work done by the actors is amazing as every second you realize just how harsh and unforgiving the Australian landscape is and was to people back then. You can almost smell the porous sweat from the captain and feel the flies that hover around Pearce's mouth when he wakes up from his rock bed. The sound design and score by Warren Ellis and Nick Cave set the tone with a minimalist feel echoing the bleak and empty landscape of the film brilliantly. The actors are all spot on and do their parts as if they were all struck with the acting rod. The macabre violence and humor fit perfectly into this tale of redemption. This type of feel and portrayal can only be achieved through excellent collaboration between writer and director which must have been the case since Cave's next script, Death of a Ladies' Man, is also being directed by John Hillcoat. The only complaint I have for this film is that at points, the lack of dialogue becomes too evident and slows everything down to a crawl making me think a little more editing could have been done to keep up the pace. The cinematagraphy is wonderful though so even the slow moments have things to rejoice in. The other thing is that if you don't like cruelty or can't stomach some disturbing scenes, there are a couple in here such as a couple of decapitated bodies.
As for the acting, I can now add Ray Winstone to my list of great current actors. His portrayal of the conflicted captain brings a humanity to this film that is needed in such a harsh environment when he and his wife are the only two likable characters. Pearce is too divulged in his own thoughts about whether to kill his brother or not to open up become a human. Although Danny Huston turns in a fine role as Arthur Burns, he doesn't seem to have the same potential in this type role as others like Harvey Keitel and Anthony Hopkins have over the years. Although there is no doubt that Tom Budge as Samuel Stote is a vicious little bugger who scares the hell out of me. John Hurt's turn as the bounty hunter Jellon Lamb is quite nice and a welcome addition to an already outstanding cast. Emma Watson as the captains wife does an excelent job of balancing her conflicts from being a good and understanding wife to a good friend leading to some interesting dilemmas. although she is very stiff, she comes across decently but I must admit it isn't her best. David Wenham is just nasal and annoying in this film and I feel there was something more he could have brought to it. Lastly Richard Wilson as Mike Burns is okay. His part consists of screaming and crying and whining a lot while sniveling. Hopefully though, such a high-profile part will open some doors and let him try out his acting chops in some bigger parts.
Conclusion:
The story, acting, and directing are excellent and all converge to create perhaps the best western of this decade so far. This film has yet to see if it can hold up to the stands of time, but if Tarantino made a good western, it would look similar to this. The cinematagraphy is great. The only real detraction are some occasionally slow points and the dense oppressive macabre violence and feel that the script necessitates. In other words, not meant for everyone. But if you can stand Tarantino, then you'll love this. The writing is exquisite and I am a huge fan. An interesting story of redemption, loyalty, and family that will have you impressed every second, if not with story, than with the emaciated skeletal bodies and draggled hair of the actors. (Interesting though how the richest one, David Wenham, never has any bedraggled hair)
4.1 out of 5
Wannabe
I have been waiting for some time to see this film, ever since I heard it was written by Nick Cave of Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds. It also helped that it has Guy Pearce (who I am convinced is probably one of the best character actors in the world) and received some rave reviews. Plus, this is the first western that I know of based in Australia. All things I find fascinating and interesting and that pay off beautifully in this film.
The film starts with a bunch of pictures of people back when England was trying to "civilize" Australia by exporting all of its criminals to it. After the opening credits though, all introductions to the world are off as we are thrust into the middle of a down and dirty shootout between Pearce, his younger brother, and the cops. After being caught, the proposition is this, if Guy Pearce brings back or kills his older brother, then his younger brother may live but he only has til Christmas. This is very ironic since in Australia, Christmas is as hot as Mississippi in the summer. The setup of the story is good and there are some traditional archetypes that have been coopted to fit the new arrangement of a western in Australia, such as the slaves being local aboriginals instead of Africans. The storyline regarding Guy Pearce's character could be interesting enough to hold the film, then you add in the extra trouble of the commanding captains problems with his own men and his wife played by the lovely Emma Watson and you have two adjacent storylines all tied to the one moment of letting Pearce free to kill his brother. The story is fascinating also because of the history inherent in it. Pearce and his brothers are all Irish and consequently the townspeople are English which is an age old rivalry and well done in this film's accents. Westerns are about a place and Cave ties this western beautifully to the old harsh rugged landscape of Australia. Pearce's older brother is a monster who hangs out with an aboriginal man, a woman, and another bloodthirsty man named Samuel Stote in some caves in the Aboriginy infested no-mans land. Pearce's older brother is as ruthless and depraved and his younger brother is naive and young. Things of course only get worse once the younger brother receives 40 lashes. The twists and turns and the crisp dialogue keep the pace moving brilliantly and the tension mounting. The characters are all drawn well and the depraved acts committed by Arthur Burns and his band wipe away any traces of care for his character. Imagine Hannibal Lecter in west with a crew and you'd understand how freaky it is to see such an intelligent man who harps about family turn around and kill slowly so as to enjoy it.
As for directing, every scene is well composed, the editing is crisp and clean, and the visceral feel of the film is astounding. The lighting, costume design, and work done by the actors is amazing as every second you realize just how harsh and unforgiving the Australian landscape is and was to people back then. You can almost smell the porous sweat from the captain and feel the flies that hover around Pearce's mouth when he wakes up from his rock bed. The sound design and score by Warren Ellis and Nick Cave set the tone with a minimalist feel echoing the bleak and empty landscape of the film brilliantly. The actors are all spot on and do their parts as if they were all struck with the acting rod. The macabre violence and humor fit perfectly into this tale of redemption. This type of feel and portrayal can only be achieved through excellent collaboration between writer and director which must have been the case since Cave's next script, Death of a Ladies' Man, is also being directed by John Hillcoat. The only complaint I have for this film is that at points, the lack of dialogue becomes too evident and slows everything down to a crawl making me think a little more editing could have been done to keep up the pace. The cinematagraphy is wonderful though so even the slow moments have things to rejoice in. The other thing is that if you don't like cruelty or can't stomach some disturbing scenes, there are a couple in here such as a couple of decapitated bodies.
As for the acting, I can now add Ray Winstone to my list of great current actors. His portrayal of the conflicted captain brings a humanity to this film that is needed in such a harsh environment when he and his wife are the only two likable characters. Pearce is too divulged in his own thoughts about whether to kill his brother or not to open up become a human. Although Danny Huston turns in a fine role as Arthur Burns, he doesn't seem to have the same potential in this type role as others like Harvey Keitel and Anthony Hopkins have over the years. Although there is no doubt that Tom Budge as Samuel Stote is a vicious little bugger who scares the hell out of me. John Hurt's turn as the bounty hunter Jellon Lamb is quite nice and a welcome addition to an already outstanding cast. Emma Watson as the captains wife does an excelent job of balancing her conflicts from being a good and understanding wife to a good friend leading to some interesting dilemmas. although she is very stiff, she comes across decently but I must admit it isn't her best. David Wenham is just nasal and annoying in this film and I feel there was something more he could have brought to it. Lastly Richard Wilson as Mike Burns is okay. His part consists of screaming and crying and whining a lot while sniveling. Hopefully though, such a high-profile part will open some doors and let him try out his acting chops in some bigger parts.
Conclusion:
The story, acting, and directing are excellent and all converge to create perhaps the best western of this decade so far. This film has yet to see if it can hold up to the stands of time, but if Tarantino made a good western, it would look similar to this. The cinematagraphy is great. The only real detraction are some occasionally slow points and the dense oppressive macabre violence and feel that the script necessitates. In other words, not meant for everyone. But if you can stand Tarantino, then you'll love this. The writing is exquisite and I am a huge fan. An interesting story of redemption, loyalty, and family that will have you impressed every second, if not with story, than with the emaciated skeletal bodies and draggled hair of the actors. (Interesting though how the richest one, David Wenham, never has any bedraggled hair)
4.1 out of 5
Wannabe
Bandidas
Western Week part 1
I have to admit, nothing about this film and its cover made me believe it was a good film. In fact, I rented it just to see how bad this film would be and I have to admit that it didn't shake my faith that I had judged this book from its cover well. What I will say, is I am surprised at how close to decent this film actually becomes. It probably helps that it is cowritten and produced by Luc Besson, a man whose varying interests and unstable abilities as director have produced such great films as The Professional to such drivel as The Transporter. His influence and imaginative creativity in the film breathes life into what is otherwise a semi-bad sexploitation western.
The film revolves around two Mexican females played by Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek. The big bad American Bank sends in some goons to procure Mexico's gold who foreclose on Mexico's banks outstanding loans and kill Hayek's father and brutally injure Cruz's father. They decide to team together to strike back at the now brutal American controlled banks by systemmatically robbing them and giving the money back to the people of Mexico. Somewhere in the middle of all this is a bumbling good hearted Steve Zahn as an outspoken proponent of science in its use of analyzing crime scenes and a former bank robber turned trainer played by Sam Shepard. The problem is this, the writers/directors try so hard to make the film an enjoyable mindless romp to produce a mainstream appealing western that it really has no edge. The evil villainous gringo banks and the goons fighting the poor Mexicans gives off Zorro vibes like crazy, not to mention the ridiculous use of the horse which Cruz can communicate through to other horses (Yes, its bizarre, but fun). The interchange and fun banter between Cruz and Hayek who play two girls from different stratums of the monetary disposition is fun but tries to make them the Thelma and Louise or more appropriately the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid of the Mexican west. Why its sad is because at times the script shows some excellent promise and brilliant ideas and funny bits that are then lost in the terribleness of a few lines(I'm sorry, but after showing the training of the buxom lasses at the hands of Sam Shepard for a good 15 minutes to have it reduced to one scene where he says all the training was to keep them around because he liked having them...please). Not to mention the fact that they choose the MOST random moments for certain things, such as after tying up Zahn's character and stripping him of his clothes...? They decide that to get the information they want, they will pose as harlots all around his naked tied up body while a photographer takes pictures and then threaten to send them to his fiance...all while they have a gun. Then after that, they decide to find out if Cruz's character has ever kissed a man by practicing on him and it becomes a running gag of them falling in love or something. It's all VERY bizarre and aimed at titillation and Legally Blonde movie lovers. Especially the creepy and not really frightening villain Jackson. Oh, did I mention there is some subplot of getting help from a local priest? Yea, very stereotyped. What is cool besides the ridiculous tongue in cheek moments of titillation aimed to make men take notice of the two protagonists (Zahn you are lucky ...), is the interesting tricks of Cruz's horse and what it can do, the whole knife thing with Hayek, and several of the awesome actions scenes. Yes, I said awesome. The last big fight between Jackson and the girls is done in complete slo-mo and gives off a brilliant feel of claustrophobia while shooting out in a small car on a train.
As for the acting...well with a generic plot the acting wasn't much better/ Although it is nice to see Hayek and Cruz obviously relishing and enjoying the goofiness of the script and playing off each other. Zahn comes across quite well as the Monk-ish early science detective/ do-gooder. NOt his finest, but probably the best in the film. Besides that, there are several other parts played laughably bad. The main villain is kinda eh, and the whole setup of the script keeps the women from being taken seriously or the story. Sam Shepard does really well too although it does hurt to see him say a few lines that completely destroy his character.
Conclusion:
Directing wise, the angles and lighting are done well. The costume designer obviously wanted to shove up breasts all day long and I appreciate it. The story provides fun shootouts and some great banter occassionally with some other great moments especially regarding horse tricks, but the film falls on itself and is lost among the occassionally terrible dialog, some bad extra performances (yea I called it) and the Charlie's Angels in the West feel. It promotes itself as nothing but a journey of two sexy latino women and that is all that it is. That and a lot of fun to watch and laugh at and sometimes with. Nothing great, but fun. Oh look, two directors, yea that never helps, just ask Kubrick and Spielberg.
2.7 out of 5
Wannabe
I have to admit, nothing about this film and its cover made me believe it was a good film. In fact, I rented it just to see how bad this film would be and I have to admit that it didn't shake my faith that I had judged this book from its cover well. What I will say, is I am surprised at how close to decent this film actually becomes. It probably helps that it is cowritten and produced by Luc Besson, a man whose varying interests and unstable abilities as director have produced such great films as The Professional to such drivel as The Transporter. His influence and imaginative creativity in the film breathes life into what is otherwise a semi-bad sexploitation western.
The film revolves around two Mexican females played by Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek. The big bad American Bank sends in some goons to procure Mexico's gold who foreclose on Mexico's banks outstanding loans and kill Hayek's father and brutally injure Cruz's father. They decide to team together to strike back at the now brutal American controlled banks by systemmatically robbing them and giving the money back to the people of Mexico. Somewhere in the middle of all this is a bumbling good hearted Steve Zahn as an outspoken proponent of science in its use of analyzing crime scenes and a former bank robber turned trainer played by Sam Shepard. The problem is this, the writers/directors try so hard to make the film an enjoyable mindless romp to produce a mainstream appealing western that it really has no edge. The evil villainous gringo banks and the goons fighting the poor Mexicans gives off Zorro vibes like crazy, not to mention the ridiculous use of the horse which Cruz can communicate through to other horses (Yes, its bizarre, but fun). The interchange and fun banter between Cruz and Hayek who play two girls from different stratums of the monetary disposition is fun but tries to make them the Thelma and Louise or more appropriately the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid of the Mexican west. Why its sad is because at times the script shows some excellent promise and brilliant ideas and funny bits that are then lost in the terribleness of a few lines(I'm sorry, but after showing the training of the buxom lasses at the hands of Sam Shepard for a good 15 minutes to have it reduced to one scene where he says all the training was to keep them around because he liked having them...please). Not to mention the fact that they choose the MOST random moments for certain things, such as after tying up Zahn's character and stripping him of his clothes...? They decide that to get the information they want, they will pose as harlots all around his naked tied up body while a photographer takes pictures and then threaten to send them to his fiance...all while they have a gun. Then after that, they decide to find out if Cruz's character has ever kissed a man by practicing on him and it becomes a running gag of them falling in love or something. It's all VERY bizarre and aimed at titillation and Legally Blonde movie lovers. Especially the creepy and not really frightening villain Jackson. Oh, did I mention there is some subplot of getting help from a local priest? Yea, very stereotyped. What is cool besides the ridiculous tongue in cheek moments of titillation aimed to make men take notice of the two protagonists (Zahn you are lucky ...), is the interesting tricks of Cruz's horse and what it can do, the whole knife thing with Hayek, and several of the awesome actions scenes. Yes, I said awesome. The last big fight between Jackson and the girls is done in complete slo-mo and gives off a brilliant feel of claustrophobia while shooting out in a small car on a train.
As for the acting...well with a generic plot the acting wasn't much better/ Although it is nice to see Hayek and Cruz obviously relishing and enjoying the goofiness of the script and playing off each other. Zahn comes across quite well as the Monk-ish early science detective/ do-gooder. NOt his finest, but probably the best in the film. Besides that, there are several other parts played laughably bad. The main villain is kinda eh, and the whole setup of the script keeps the women from being taken seriously or the story. Sam Shepard does really well too although it does hurt to see him say a few lines that completely destroy his character.
Conclusion:
Directing wise, the angles and lighting are done well. The costume designer obviously wanted to shove up breasts all day long and I appreciate it. The story provides fun shootouts and some great banter occassionally with some other great moments especially regarding horse tricks, but the film falls on itself and is lost among the occassionally terrible dialog, some bad extra performances (yea I called it) and the Charlie's Angels in the West feel. It promotes itself as nothing but a journey of two sexy latino women and that is all that it is. That and a lot of fun to watch and laugh at and sometimes with. Nothing great, but fun. Oh look, two directors, yea that never helps, just ask Kubrick and Spielberg.
2.7 out of 5
Wannabe
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Fox and the Hound
'The Fox is down'
Disney 2D animated children films are considered classics by most people, critics and audiences alike. Snow White, Bambi, even the more recent ones like Hercules and The Emperor's New Groove are loved and respected. I have recently been on a trek to track down my childhood in the films and trends I loved as might be noticed by the recent reviews for Bambi and TMNT. I found this old gem lying around in a Giant's grocery store and had to watch it. I don't remember much about this film except that it was a story about the strength and bond between two best friends in a world that drives them apart. That and it had a cool owl and that I used to love it before I discovered the rest of the Disney canon. So here we go!
The most interesting part of this film from the get-go is the fact that Kurt Russel and Mickey Rooney are the two main voice actors. Snake Plissken made a frigging Disney film! Sweet animated apocalypse! Besides that though, the movie doesn't have too much going for it outside of the fond nostalgia and the novelty of seeing a badass do a Disney film. Although I guess it can work, I mean hey, Vin Diesel did the awesome voiceover for The Iron Giant. The animation in the film is fairly generic and the use of shadow is applied only in times of danger, which is an interesting idea. The problem is when it isn't used the scenes seem too flat. The story itself is okay and has a sort of Romeo & Juliet were best friends feel. A fox and a hound, good buds early in life, grow older and are driven apart and then they must decide what to do with their friendship in the new context of life or death. The fact that they grow up in one summer apart is really impressive, I wish I could grow that old that fast...at least I did when I was a kid. Since then, there have been other thoughts. The heart of the story is basically overpowered by the amount of tangenital stuff happening. There are the birds and the owl who watch over the fox and there is the watchful stern eye of the master and Chief over the dog. Then there are the scenes that prove that the filmmakers were more interested in some of the ancillary characters than the main ones. Like the numerous scenes of Boomer and the other small gangster bird, (no seriously, if you watch they do the whole gangster thing and pay respect to Big Mama the friggin owl)chasing after the poor green caterpillar who always manages to escape. It is eerily reminiscent of the modern day adventures of Scratch in the Ice Age movies, except not as funny. To give it due respect these scenes help with the suggestion of the passage of time, but they are actually unnecessary. Then there are th several random songs that try to fit in with the country background but seem to be too jazzy. The entire thing is mish mash of ideas and situations from Disney and its other films that are mishandled and detract from the plot or establishing a connection with the characters. The fox comes across as a self certain brat who has no idea as to the problems he incurs and their consequences on others, yet we should care because he has red fur and gets chased by his friend to be killed. I admit that their are some dark undertones at times, but nothing is balanced evenly at all. Like this review, it just sort of rambles.
The voice acting is delightful and amusing. Big Mama and the stereotypes of the gangsters as portrayed by the birds are interesting to see. Kurt Russell is okay and Mickey Rooney is excellent as always. The thing that keeps the movie watchableare the number of random events and scenes thrown in. although it detracts from the main story, the main story isn't developed enough in the film to be interesting on its as a whole, so the tangenital stuff keeps things interesting by making the audience stay on its toes about whatever the heck may happen next. It's not the worst Disney film, not by a lonnnnnnng shot. But it certainly cannot hold itself together enough to make a solidified message or to be captivating for itself which keeps it from being a classic. But still, Death Proof + Disney = Fox and the Hound? Yay, Kurt Russel and his muskrat hairdo make me happy!
Conclusion:
The films weakness is its rambling structure. This is also the saving grace of the film as the story on its own is not enough to carry the movie. The animation is so so and the story feels like a mish mash of previous Disney truisms. The voice acting and the inclusion of the kid friendly ganster world keep the film interesting as does the dark tones of death by hound dog and hunter combination. Not the greatest and sure as hell no Bambi, but its a fun nostalgic romp through better summer days and countryside. It probably didn't help that it has three directors either.
3.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Disney 2D animated children films are considered classics by most people, critics and audiences alike. Snow White, Bambi, even the more recent ones like Hercules and The Emperor's New Groove are loved and respected. I have recently been on a trek to track down my childhood in the films and trends I loved as might be noticed by the recent reviews for Bambi and TMNT. I found this old gem lying around in a Giant's grocery store and had to watch it. I don't remember much about this film except that it was a story about the strength and bond between two best friends in a world that drives them apart. That and it had a cool owl and that I used to love it before I discovered the rest of the Disney canon. So here we go!
The most interesting part of this film from the get-go is the fact that Kurt Russel and Mickey Rooney are the two main voice actors. Snake Plissken made a frigging Disney film! Sweet animated apocalypse! Besides that though, the movie doesn't have too much going for it outside of the fond nostalgia and the novelty of seeing a badass do a Disney film. Although I guess it can work, I mean hey, Vin Diesel did the awesome voiceover for The Iron Giant. The animation in the film is fairly generic and the use of shadow is applied only in times of danger, which is an interesting idea. The problem is when it isn't used the scenes seem too flat. The story itself is okay and has a sort of Romeo & Juliet were best friends feel. A fox and a hound, good buds early in life, grow older and are driven apart and then they must decide what to do with their friendship in the new context of life or death. The fact that they grow up in one summer apart is really impressive, I wish I could grow that old that fast...at least I did when I was a kid. Since then, there have been other thoughts. The heart of the story is basically overpowered by the amount of tangenital stuff happening. There are the birds and the owl who watch over the fox and there is the watchful stern eye of the master and Chief over the dog. Then there are the scenes that prove that the filmmakers were more interested in some of the ancillary characters than the main ones. Like the numerous scenes of Boomer and the other small gangster bird, (no seriously, if you watch they do the whole gangster thing and pay respect to Big Mama the friggin owl)chasing after the poor green caterpillar who always manages to escape. It is eerily reminiscent of the modern day adventures of Scratch in the Ice Age movies, except not as funny. To give it due respect these scenes help with the suggestion of the passage of time, but they are actually unnecessary. Then there are th several random songs that try to fit in with the country background but seem to be too jazzy. The entire thing is mish mash of ideas and situations from Disney and its other films that are mishandled and detract from the plot or establishing a connection with the characters. The fox comes across as a self certain brat who has no idea as to the problems he incurs and their consequences on others, yet we should care because he has red fur and gets chased by his friend to be killed. I admit that their are some dark undertones at times, but nothing is balanced evenly at all. Like this review, it just sort of rambles.
The voice acting is delightful and amusing. Big Mama and the stereotypes of the gangsters as portrayed by the birds are interesting to see. Kurt Russell is okay and Mickey Rooney is excellent as always. The thing that keeps the movie watchableare the number of random events and scenes thrown in. although it detracts from the main story, the main story isn't developed enough in the film to be interesting on its as a whole, so the tangenital stuff keeps things interesting by making the audience stay on its toes about whatever the heck may happen next. It's not the worst Disney film, not by a lonnnnnnng shot. But it certainly cannot hold itself together enough to make a solidified message or to be captivating for itself which keeps it from being a classic. But still, Death Proof + Disney = Fox and the Hound? Yay, Kurt Russel and his muskrat hairdo make me happy!
Conclusion:
The films weakness is its rambling structure. This is also the saving grace of the film as the story on its own is not enough to carry the movie. The animation is so so and the story feels like a mish mash of previous Disney truisms. The voice acting and the inclusion of the kid friendly ganster world keep the film interesting as does the dark tones of death by hound dog and hunter combination. Not the greatest and sure as hell no Bambi, but its a fun nostalgic romp through better summer days and countryside. It probably didn't help that it has three directors either.
3.45 out of 5
Wannabe
Monday, April 2, 2007
Meet The Robinsons
'Meet my boredom'
Hmmm...I would love to rant at this point and rip this film a new perforation, but my thoughts and experiences have been tempered on this film by the people I saw it with, a bunch of seminarians and their significant others. Maybe that explains the general thoughts on how great the movie was after the show, but sinc I do respect their judgements, perhaps I am just too elitist and snobbish to enjoy the movie as it is supposed to be. So despite the rant that might follow, keep in mind that I was the only one of a large group of people who disliked the film. The film works well for people interested in seeing something amusing and very childish. It certainly won't threaten your child's soul and the only thing that conservative Christians might be opposed to is the use of dinosaurs and the unnatural idea of time travel. You want somethings safe, unchallenging, and with an interesting look at the future, go see this movie. Now, my point of view.
This film was already in the works before Pixar rejoined Disney and John Lasseter took over the animation division. Apparently, after he rejoined he yanked this film from its original release date and reworked it to its present state. Even the great John Lasseter couldn't save this film. The film starts with a decent if predictable plotline of an orphan inventor boy who can never be adopted because he isn't sporty enough and too involved in inventions that explode. After that, there is some plot of old-school creepy guy in black coat revenge thing and future boy trying to steal back his father's time machine to keep from being in trouble. Actually, the plot despite its predictability holds together pretty well, the only real problems being how does Tiny the T-Rex come to the future if h can't fit in the time travel machine and why is the main character's hair a dead giveaway? Of course these are easily overlooked especially by children. The real problem are the villains and the half baked conception of the future. All of the villains except the hat named Doris are ridiculously simple. The running joke of the film is how the main villain can't think through revenge properly to the point where even a T-Rex is smarter than he is. Even the hat is just a bad rip off of pretty much any A.I. computer villain with ties to The Matrix and Hal evident in its design. At best, the villains are amusing at moments. When I say that the funniest parts of the film are in the trailer, I'm being serious. The film fails and it is completely the fault of the writers, the director, and especially Disney for not being better about what it chooses to create.
The failure of the film is that unlike most Disney theatrical films, it doesn't really try to make an attempt at appealing to older audiences. Sure, there are a couple of tongue-in-cheek jokes here and there that no kid will understand, but for the most part, the script is written to be entertaining for children. The moral lessons and life lessons for which Disney films are known are highly muted and deal with the idea of being adopted and coming to terms with the lack of having a parent. That was actually the best part of the script since I don't think many Disney films have dealt with that as directly as this one. Sure, Aladdin was an abandoned street thug and Bambi lost his mom, but their parents were never a prominent part of the story(Aladdin III doesn't count). The script is meant for kids who have no idea where the ideas and storylines are stolen from or copied. Its sad because the CG is top-notch and quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, the idea of the future is so fantastical that it seems to have been visualized in that sense simply to have something interesting to look at on screen. Also, the script is so scatterbrained that certain characters set up to be important are quickly discarded or glanced over and left me feeling cheated of trying to invest time in knowing them. This is especially true of the liberally catholic sized family of the future.
Conclusion
For children, this film will not challenge them and might teach them something about family, but for everyone else who enjoys good film, this offers nothing new, funny, or really interesting except for a couple of amusing visuals and some laughs at a T-Rex. If you enjoy getting in touch with your inner child, then feel free to go see it, but at this point I would highly recommend any Pixar flick, classic Disney, or other child movie currently released to this one. It just doesn't have the same careful thought or study invested in the script and story that is the usual trademark of the Disney quality. Hopefully this is the last CG non-Pixar movie by Disney since I found the traditionally animated short at the beginning of the film more interesting than the feature. If nothing else, go see the short and leave, it does a great job of preparing the viewer for the reminder of childhood to come after it in the form of a feature.
2.8 out of 5 for feature
3.4 out of 5 for short
Wannabe
Hmmm...I would love to rant at this point and rip this film a new perforation, but my thoughts and experiences have been tempered on this film by the people I saw it with, a bunch of seminarians and their significant others. Maybe that explains the general thoughts on how great the movie was after the show, but sinc I do respect their judgements, perhaps I am just too elitist and snobbish to enjoy the movie as it is supposed to be. So despite the rant that might follow, keep in mind that I was the only one of a large group of people who disliked the film. The film works well for people interested in seeing something amusing and very childish. It certainly won't threaten your child's soul and the only thing that conservative Christians might be opposed to is the use of dinosaurs and the unnatural idea of time travel. You want somethings safe, unchallenging, and with an interesting look at the future, go see this movie. Now, my point of view.
This film was already in the works before Pixar rejoined Disney and John Lasseter took over the animation division. Apparently, after he rejoined he yanked this film from its original release date and reworked it to its present state. Even the great John Lasseter couldn't save this film. The film starts with a decent if predictable plotline of an orphan inventor boy who can never be adopted because he isn't sporty enough and too involved in inventions that explode. After that, there is some plot of old-school creepy guy in black coat revenge thing and future boy trying to steal back his father's time machine to keep from being in trouble. Actually, the plot despite its predictability holds together pretty well, the only real problems being how does Tiny the T-Rex come to the future if h can't fit in the time travel machine and why is the main character's hair a dead giveaway? Of course these are easily overlooked especially by children. The real problem are the villains and the half baked conception of the future. All of the villains except the hat named Doris are ridiculously simple. The running joke of the film is how the main villain can't think through revenge properly to the point where even a T-Rex is smarter than he is. Even the hat is just a bad rip off of pretty much any A.I. computer villain with ties to The Matrix and Hal evident in its design. At best, the villains are amusing at moments. When I say that the funniest parts of the film are in the trailer, I'm being serious. The film fails and it is completely the fault of the writers, the director, and especially Disney for not being better about what it chooses to create.
The failure of the film is that unlike most Disney theatrical films, it doesn't really try to make an attempt at appealing to older audiences. Sure, there are a couple of tongue-in-cheek jokes here and there that no kid will understand, but for the most part, the script is written to be entertaining for children. The moral lessons and life lessons for which Disney films are known are highly muted and deal with the idea of being adopted and coming to terms with the lack of having a parent. That was actually the best part of the script since I don't think many Disney films have dealt with that as directly as this one. Sure, Aladdin was an abandoned street thug and Bambi lost his mom, but their parents were never a prominent part of the story(Aladdin III doesn't count). The script is meant for kids who have no idea where the ideas and storylines are stolen from or copied. Its sad because the CG is top-notch and quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, the idea of the future is so fantastical that it seems to have been visualized in that sense simply to have something interesting to look at on screen. Also, the script is so scatterbrained that certain characters set up to be important are quickly discarded or glanced over and left me feeling cheated of trying to invest time in knowing them. This is especially true of the liberally catholic sized family of the future.
Conclusion
For children, this film will not challenge them and might teach them something about family, but for everyone else who enjoys good film, this offers nothing new, funny, or really interesting except for a couple of amusing visuals and some laughs at a T-Rex. If you enjoy getting in touch with your inner child, then feel free to go see it, but at this point I would highly recommend any Pixar flick, classic Disney, or other child movie currently released to this one. It just doesn't have the same careful thought or study invested in the script and story that is the usual trademark of the Disney quality. Hopefully this is the last CG non-Pixar movie by Disney since I found the traditionally animated short at the beginning of the film more interesting than the feature. If nothing else, go see the short and leave, it does a great job of preparing the viewer for the reminder of childhood to come after it in the form of a feature.
2.8 out of 5 for feature
3.4 out of 5 for short
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
