Batman: Year One - To spare confusion, this is a review of the recently released animated DVD. Yes, after being an inspiration (of varying degrees) to both Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan's first films involving the Dark Knight, someone finally got around to doing a rendition, albeit animated, of this classic graphic novel. Does it hold up? Let's find out.
Batman: Year One begins with Bruce Wayne/Batman (Ben McKenzie) returning to Gotham. Jim Gordon (the wonderful Bryan Cranston) is also arriving in Gotham after a transfer from Chicago. The two men face adversary from Gotham's corrupt police force, Mafiosos and rotten political underbelly.
The animated style of the film is, for the most part, not bad. The violence is well animated, and the whole thing essentially reads as a blow by blow reaccount of the original comic book. Which is not bad, depending on your taste. I would've liked some small deviation from the original, in that novelty is sometimes it's own reward. Most of the voice actors were well chosen and perform adequately to excellently, with one glaring omission. Bryan Cranston is excellent as Jim Gordon. Bret McKenzie is terrible as Batman, with the exception of a couple of excerpts that were so well written any one could have knocked out of the park. He reminds me of Altair from Assassin's Creed, saying everything in some horrible haunted monotone that evokes Hayden Christiansen's Anakin Skywalker. Okay, it's not that bad. Nothing is that bad. But Bret comes close. He's no Kevin Conroy (Batman: TAS), that's for damn sure. I think they wanted to evoke this scary serial killer thing with him, and that's all wrong for Batman.
Another problem that magnifies Bret's awful voice-acting is that the filmmakers have eliminated most of Batman's narration. As a result, he seems like almost a supporting character in his own film, which is odd considering the name of the film is Batman: Year One, not Jim Gordon: Year One. It's funny because Tim Burton practically made the Joker the protagonist in his Batman and Christopher Nolan pretty much made Harvey Dent the protagonist of The Dark Knight. Guys, if you don't find Batman interesting, don't make a Batman movie (Chris I'm kidding, continue to do what you do).
What it adds up to is an okay rendition of a classic graphic novel. Was it possible to live up to the original, given the amount of influence it had? Not really, but they could have done better had they offered a better Batman and not given essentially a retread. Good for some thrills but strangely forgettable, Batman: Year One gets a
C+
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Paranormal Activity 3 review
Happy almost Halloween everybody! It's time for a review of the weekend's big box-office hit. The Paranormal Activity series or as I like to call it the "obsessive camera guy with absurd amounts of spare time and incredibly spacious haunted luxury home" series (maybe their name for it is better) has done quite well over the last few years, and I rather like the tonal shift away from the torture porn movies that reigned as king in the aughts. To paraphrase another review, I like the type of horror this series does, and I like the audiences that go to see it. That said, is this film any good? Let's find out.
Paranormal Activity 3 - This film is a prequel to the previous films. We have a short clip of Katie (of films one and two) and her sister Kristi pregnant with Hunter in 2005 (prior to either 2 movies) and then we jump back further in time to September 1988, a month after I was born. I'm wondering if Paranormal Activity 4 will feature Katie in utero development with haunted ultrasound photos. Her family seems to go through this debacle regularly. The movie reveals that she was not always plagued by a demon but perhaps inherited him from her sister...which PA2 already implied. There's not much else this movie sheds light on that doesn't verge into the kind of awkward, reminding me almost of The Last Exorcism.
In terms of plot, the film is rather light. So there's not much to do but sit back and play I Spy. If that's your thing (and if, like me you saw the past two movies, it is) great. If not, or you dislike horror movies altogether, than by all means stay away. The movie does not verge from the now well established formula of the prior movies, and that's rather disappointing. Worse yet, the movie forgets what was, for me, the scariest part of the first (and still reigning scare champ) film: the minimalist but still frightening sounds. You can explode all the kitchen chairs or move the furniture up to the ceiling, but an almost inaudible growl or roar leaves me cringing.
Familiarity builds contempt, and the filmmakers have all but exhausted their bag of tricks it seems. Two or three or six cameras does not a better film make. And while I love the subtle slow build over the jump scare any day of the week, I confess I'm rather tired of the found footage device. When a child is crying in a corner, would you not put the camera down to comfort them? When a menace is apparent, would you not grab say - a knife or blunt implement - rather than slowly advance with a camera? It's the "He's right behind you! Don't split up! Don't open that door! For gods sakes, get a clue from that creepy music!" of our generation.
I had some chills and there are some suspenseful moments, albeit nothing compared to the first movie which left me too scared to sleep for hours. The ending is kind of a letdown, and I guessed early what at least part of the source of the trouble is, and you will too. I just hope the filmmakers don't pull a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" to try and further undermine the spookfactor of "Toby".
More of the same, Paranormal Activity 3 gets a
B-
Paranormal Activity 3 - This film is a prequel to the previous films. We have a short clip of Katie (of films one and two) and her sister Kristi pregnant with Hunter in 2005 (prior to either 2 movies) and then we jump back further in time to September 1988, a month after I was born. I'm wondering if Paranormal Activity 4 will feature Katie in utero development with haunted ultrasound photos. Her family seems to go through this debacle regularly. The movie reveals that she was not always plagued by a demon but perhaps inherited him from her sister...which PA2 already implied. There's not much else this movie sheds light on that doesn't verge into the kind of awkward, reminding me almost of The Last Exorcism.
In terms of plot, the film is rather light. So there's not much to do but sit back and play I Spy. If that's your thing (and if, like me you saw the past two movies, it is) great. If not, or you dislike horror movies altogether, than by all means stay away. The movie does not verge from the now well established formula of the prior movies, and that's rather disappointing. Worse yet, the movie forgets what was, for me, the scariest part of the first (and still reigning scare champ) film: the minimalist but still frightening sounds. You can explode all the kitchen chairs or move the furniture up to the ceiling, but an almost inaudible growl or roar leaves me cringing.
Familiarity builds contempt, and the filmmakers have all but exhausted their bag of tricks it seems. Two or three or six cameras does not a better film make. And while I love the subtle slow build over the jump scare any day of the week, I confess I'm rather tired of the found footage device. When a child is crying in a corner, would you not put the camera down to comfort them? When a menace is apparent, would you not grab say - a knife or blunt implement - rather than slowly advance with a camera? It's the "He's right behind you! Don't split up! Don't open that door! For gods sakes, get a clue from that creepy music!" of our generation.
I had some chills and there are some suspenseful moments, albeit nothing compared to the first movie which left me too scared to sleep for hours. The ending is kind of a letdown, and I guessed early what at least part of the source of the trouble is, and you will too. I just hope the filmmakers don't pull a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" to try and further undermine the spookfactor of "Toby".
More of the same, Paranormal Activity 3 gets a
B-
Friday, October 14, 2011
Drive review
Drive - Meant to do this one last week. In any case, Drive is a much heralded movie with a 93% on RottenTomatoes.com, and my notoriously hard to please friend enjoyed it. That said, did I like it? Well, yes and no. But more on that later.
A driver who will take any (five-minute long) job gets into trouble when a job goes wrong and he must fight mobsters and thugs to protect himself, a young mother and her son.
Drive stars Ryan Gosling stars as "The Driver". This lack of a name, or any major characterization beyond the man's mechanical purpose in the film, is telling as to just what sort of movie this film really is. It's a B-movie, with all the positives and negative attributed to that sort of movie. Drive relishes in the simple definitions and sense of morality that would make Stallone proud (Cobra and Rambo were B-movies after all). The Driver and a young boy are watching a cartoon and a Shark with legs appears onscreen. "He's the Bad Guy" one of them says. "How can you tell?" the other replies. We know, and we don't need explanations or motivations. Who says the 50s are dead? We still consider ourselves to be our jobs, and we judge overly on appearances.
I enjoyed the way the first half of this movie plays out. Actually, I really enjoyed the way the first five minutes of the movie play out. It's tight, nail-bitingly suspenseful, and without a drop of blood. The first half of the film is almost a different beast altogether from the rest of the film. It's serene, interesting, and not much is said. But then how much of what we say in the real world is that important? Small talk prevails, as meaningful subjects are avoided. We all die wishing we'd said more and meant more. The first half of the movie was like a poetic mirror. I actually lost myself in some of the vast pauses in conversation. Maybe I read too much into it.
Drive has a fantastic supporting cast and, in my opinion, wastes a few of my favorite TV actors. Anything is proportionally better the more Christina Hendricks is used. Unfortunately, by Hollywood standards, she's far too beautiful (in a lioness way) to be cast as anything other than the woman who is not to be trusted. It's weird to see Bryan Cranston with hair (Jessie!) and I would have liked to have seen more of him as well.
I thought the soundtrack to be another of Drive's stronger points. The cinematography is also excellent. Unfortunately, someone got splattergore in my cool suspense film. Yes, the second half of the film is an over-the-top Tarantino level of violence. It's unnecessary, and the film can do nothing but take it completely seriously or risk an even weirder tonal shift from the first half of the movie. It offers a mildly interesting contrariness to the serene/suspenseful first half of the movie, but then, so would putting a severed head next to a Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean I would enjoy seeing that either. Oh Drive, I had high hopes for you. Maybe someday there can be a mainstream art picture without a bodycount. Alas, we do not live in that civilized a day. Our hands too, are dirty. Drive, which is at the end of the day a B-movie, gets a
B.
A driver who will take any (five-minute long) job gets into trouble when a job goes wrong and he must fight mobsters and thugs to protect himself, a young mother and her son.
Drive stars Ryan Gosling stars as "The Driver". This lack of a name, or any major characterization beyond the man's mechanical purpose in the film, is telling as to just what sort of movie this film really is. It's a B-movie, with all the positives and negative attributed to that sort of movie. Drive relishes in the simple definitions and sense of morality that would make Stallone proud (Cobra and Rambo were B-movies after all). The Driver and a young boy are watching a cartoon and a Shark with legs appears onscreen. "He's the Bad Guy" one of them says. "How can you tell?" the other replies. We know, and we don't need explanations or motivations. Who says the 50s are dead? We still consider ourselves to be our jobs, and we judge overly on appearances.
I enjoyed the way the first half of this movie plays out. Actually, I really enjoyed the way the first five minutes of the movie play out. It's tight, nail-bitingly suspenseful, and without a drop of blood. The first half of the film is almost a different beast altogether from the rest of the film. It's serene, interesting, and not much is said. But then how much of what we say in the real world is that important? Small talk prevails, as meaningful subjects are avoided. We all die wishing we'd said more and meant more. The first half of the movie was like a poetic mirror. I actually lost myself in some of the vast pauses in conversation. Maybe I read too much into it.
Drive has a fantastic supporting cast and, in my opinion, wastes a few of my favorite TV actors. Anything is proportionally better the more Christina Hendricks is used. Unfortunately, by Hollywood standards, she's far too beautiful (in a lioness way) to be cast as anything other than the woman who is not to be trusted. It's weird to see Bryan Cranston with hair (Jessie!) and I would have liked to have seen more of him as well.
I thought the soundtrack to be another of Drive's stronger points. The cinematography is also excellent. Unfortunately, someone got splattergore in my cool suspense film. Yes, the second half of the film is an over-the-top Tarantino level of violence. It's unnecessary, and the film can do nothing but take it completely seriously or risk an even weirder tonal shift from the first half of the movie. It offers a mildly interesting contrariness to the serene/suspenseful first half of the movie, but then, so would putting a severed head next to a Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean I would enjoy seeing that either. Oh Drive, I had high hopes for you. Maybe someday there can be a mainstream art picture without a bodycount. Alas, we do not live in that civilized a day. Our hands too, are dirty. Drive, which is at the end of the day a B-movie, gets a
B.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Our Idiot Brother review
Our Idiot Brother - Ned (Paul Rudd) is a stoner idealist. Due to a predictable albeit funny mistake on his part, Ned goes to jail. When he gets out, his girlfriend kicks him out of their house. Ned then relies on the charity of his mother and three sisters (Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, and Emily Mortimer) and Ned accidentally exposes hidden truths about their lives.
This movie was a hidden gem! Didn't think much of the trailer for it, didn't intend to see it, but this movie is delightful. Ned is easily the best role Paul Rudd has played since his Anchorman role Brian Fantana, and Our Idiot Brother is his best film since Role Models. Too often Paul Rudd is cast as the snide straight man, while others like Steve Carrell play the goofball, but it's not my favorite role Paul gets to play. His handsomeness is what I think is to blame concerning Hollywood's typically unimaginative casting. Here, as Ned, Paul gets to (literally) let his hair down and approaches his role without cliche or self-awareness. It's genuine and sweet without being cloying. He's the perfect idealist, aware of himself and steadfast in his views regardless of the trouble they might lead to. What could be more annoying to a family of harpies and people caught in self denial?
Elizabeth Banks gets to play a bitch, and Zooey Deschanel plays someone who isn't ridiculously kooky. Steve Coogan, alas, still plays a snide bastard, but he does so with restraint.
I'm not crazy about the title as Ned isn't an idiot, and I feel it was a bad choice and may end up attracting the wrong people to the film and disappointing them. It's not a goofy slapstick film or a stoner comedy (though there are moments) and there aren't any lowest common denominator jokes. The title is the main misstep the movie makes. The laughs come often and the hippies "fighting" is hysterical. There is not a situation that feels cartoonish or unrealistic. Ned is someone I'd genuinely like to know. The world would probably be better off if more people followed in his....crocks. Okay, he's not perfect, and neither is the film. But the cracks are so small I would need a microscope to find them. I would gladly see this film again (probably on DVD) and it was a nice way to end the summer.
Our Idiot Brother gets a A-
This movie was a hidden gem! Didn't think much of the trailer for it, didn't intend to see it, but this movie is delightful. Ned is easily the best role Paul Rudd has played since his Anchorman role Brian Fantana, and Our Idiot Brother is his best film since Role Models. Too often Paul Rudd is cast as the snide straight man, while others like Steve Carrell play the goofball, but it's not my favorite role Paul gets to play. His handsomeness is what I think is to blame concerning Hollywood's typically unimaginative casting. Here, as Ned, Paul gets to (literally) let his hair down and approaches his role without cliche or self-awareness. It's genuine and sweet without being cloying. He's the perfect idealist, aware of himself and steadfast in his views regardless of the trouble they might lead to. What could be more annoying to a family of harpies and people caught in self denial?
Elizabeth Banks gets to play a bitch, and Zooey Deschanel plays someone who isn't ridiculously kooky. Steve Coogan, alas, still plays a snide bastard, but he does so with restraint.
I'm not crazy about the title as Ned isn't an idiot, and I feel it was a bad choice and may end up attracting the wrong people to the film and disappointing them. It's not a goofy slapstick film or a stoner comedy (though there are moments) and there aren't any lowest common denominator jokes. The title is the main misstep the movie makes. The laughs come often and the hippies "fighting" is hysterical. There is not a situation that feels cartoonish or unrealistic. Ned is someone I'd genuinely like to know. The world would probably be better off if more people followed in his....crocks. Okay, he's not perfect, and neither is the film. But the cracks are so small I would need a microscope to find them. I would gladly see this film again (probably on DVD) and it was a nice way to end the summer.
Our Idiot Brother gets a A-
Friday, August 26, 2011
Fright Night 3D
Fright Night 3D - All Charley (Anton Yelchin) every wanted was a normal life with his single mom (Toni Collette) and girlfriend (Imogen Poots) he suspects is too good for him. But Jerry (Colin Farrell), the next door neighbor has some strange mannerisms and habits. Kids are disappearing from class at school and Charley's former best friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) suspects that Jerry is a vampire.
Okay, this movie is a lot of fun. It has some tightly coiled suspense, well crafted characters, and a good mix of horror and comedy. There's rather more of the former than the latter. What's more, the film isn't so meta (aside from a few jokes about vampire lore and Twilight) that you would get taken out of the story. The screenplay was done by Marti Noxon of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel writing staffs, and it's a well crafted piece of work. Although the film never gets much better tension-wise than the first scene with Jerry and Charley, it's still has plenty of thrills along the way. And it makes vampires into a dangerous difficult to kill menace again! A small but note-worthy achievement in a day where True Blood asks us to get along with them and Twilight desires for us to snuggle in a meadow with them.
Colin Farrell is excellent as Jerry the vampire. It's kind of a shame that as his box office returns get lower, Farrell delivers better and better. I also love David Tennant (of Doctor Who fame) in general, but he's great as vampire hunter/stage magician/drunk foul-mouthed hasbeen Peter Vincent.
Bottom line, Fright Night is a very fun, occasionally scary, well scripted movie. It's not amazing, and doesn't say anything new about the subject of vampires, but if you're going to do a re-make, it might as well be fun enough to make me forget that fact. In a month typically bereft of good movies, Fright Night is the best you're going to do for entertainment this August. Fright Night gets a B+
Okay, this movie is a lot of fun. It has some tightly coiled suspense, well crafted characters, and a good mix of horror and comedy. There's rather more of the former than the latter. What's more, the film isn't so meta (aside from a few jokes about vampire lore and Twilight) that you would get taken out of the story. The screenplay was done by Marti Noxon of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel writing staffs, and it's a well crafted piece of work. Although the film never gets much better tension-wise than the first scene with Jerry and Charley, it's still has plenty of thrills along the way. And it makes vampires into a dangerous difficult to kill menace again! A small but note-worthy achievement in a day where True Blood asks us to get along with them and Twilight desires for us to snuggle in a meadow with them.
Colin Farrell is excellent as Jerry the vampire. It's kind of a shame that as his box office returns get lower, Farrell delivers better and better. I also love David Tennant (of Doctor Who fame) in general, but he's great as vampire hunter/stage magician/drunk foul-mouthed hasbeen Peter Vincent.
Bottom line, Fright Night is a very fun, occasionally scary, well scripted movie. It's not amazing, and doesn't say anything new about the subject of vampires, but if you're going to do a re-make, it might as well be fun enough to make me forget that fact. In a month typically bereft of good movies, Fright Night is the best you're going to do for entertainment this August. Fright Night gets a B+
Friday, August 12, 2011
Glee: The 3D Concert Movie
Glee The 3D Concert Movie: This concert edition of the worldwide hit TV show, Glee, features performances from the concert by the cast and interviews with the cast and the fans.
Songs performed from the show include standard fare like "Somebody to Love" "Don't Rain on My Parade" and "Don't Stop Believing", but it also has more recent Season 2 material. I was pleased to see "River Deep, Mountain High" and "Ain't No Way". Gwenyth Paltrow also shows up to sing "Forget You". Really, none of the numbers hit a bum note. "Valerie" and "Slave 4 U" have some kickass dance numbers, and Finn, Puck and Artie all bring it with "Jessie's Girl" "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "P.Y.T". My favorites though have to be the Warblers. Darren Criss and his group of blazer boys are the perfect combo of charm, dance and harmony. Really, you either love Glee or you don't, and this is not likely to convert the non-fans.
However, despite my praise and love of the show, musical numbers and cast, I have some major criticisms. The movie is about an hour and a half long, with an extra half hour of ads (Thanks Fox!) on top of that. But once the concert gets going, there's always a break for an interview with a fan with a story. There's a girl with red hair and Aspergers who loves the show. There's a gay kid who looks up to Kurt. And there's a dwarf cheerleader who goes to prom. None of them are interesting, and they actively detract from the experience. I'm sorry guys, but I JUST DON'T CARE. The show has touched you. You see yourself as one of the cast. So does everyone else.
It's a concert movie, guys. It shouldn't be possible to screw this up, but they did. The sole exception in the distractions was this 4 year old Asian child in a Warbler blazer who has memorized the song and dance routines and performs them in his living room. He actually made the show for me by being freaking adorable and hilarious. But the rest of the non-concert activity was the equivalent of an exciting action movie interrupted every 5 minutes with a screen-filling ad for life insurance. It's irritating filler, and fans deserve better.
The filler feels like a concealed middle finger to fans who didn't pay to see the concert live. The extra cash required to see the film in 3D (we saw the early bird special, so money saved there) adds insult to injury. 3D adds nothing except cash to studio pockets.
Bottom line, the musical numbers were great (refreshing to not hear as much audio enhancement), but they're nothing you could not see by re-watching the show, and there weren't enough of them. The non-concert related material sinks the show. And where is Matthew Morrison? Oh yeah, doing his solo concert. Disappointment. I can't really recommend forking out the extra cash for this one. For hardcore Gleeks only. Love Glee but I hate you Ryan Murphy.
C-
Songs performed from the show include standard fare like "Somebody to Love" "Don't Rain on My Parade" and "Don't Stop Believing", but it also has more recent Season 2 material. I was pleased to see "River Deep, Mountain High" and "Ain't No Way". Gwenyth Paltrow also shows up to sing "Forget You". Really, none of the numbers hit a bum note. "Valerie" and "Slave 4 U" have some kickass dance numbers, and Finn, Puck and Artie all bring it with "Jessie's Girl" "Fat Bottomed Girls" and "P.Y.T". My favorites though have to be the Warblers. Darren Criss and his group of blazer boys are the perfect combo of charm, dance and harmony. Really, you either love Glee or you don't, and this is not likely to convert the non-fans.
However, despite my praise and love of the show, musical numbers and cast, I have some major criticisms. The movie is about an hour and a half long, with an extra half hour of ads (Thanks Fox!) on top of that. But once the concert gets going, there's always a break for an interview with a fan with a story. There's a girl with red hair and Aspergers who loves the show. There's a gay kid who looks up to Kurt. And there's a dwarf cheerleader who goes to prom. None of them are interesting, and they actively detract from the experience. I'm sorry guys, but I JUST DON'T CARE. The show has touched you. You see yourself as one of the cast. So does everyone else.
It's a concert movie, guys. It shouldn't be possible to screw this up, but they did. The sole exception in the distractions was this 4 year old Asian child in a Warbler blazer who has memorized the song and dance routines and performs them in his living room. He actually made the show for me by being freaking adorable and hilarious. But the rest of the non-concert activity was the equivalent of an exciting action movie interrupted every 5 minutes with a screen-filling ad for life insurance. It's irritating filler, and fans deserve better.
The filler feels like a concealed middle finger to fans who didn't pay to see the concert live. The extra cash required to see the film in 3D (we saw the early bird special, so money saved there) adds insult to injury. 3D adds nothing except cash to studio pockets.
Bottom line, the musical numbers were great (refreshing to not hear as much audio enhancement), but they're nothing you could not see by re-watching the show, and there weren't enough of them. The non-concert related material sinks the show. And where is Matthew Morrison? Oh yeah, doing his solo concert. Disappointment. I can't really recommend forking out the extra cash for this one. For hardcore Gleeks only. Love Glee but I hate you Ryan Murphy.
C-
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Captain America: The First Avenger.
Sidenote: getting to see this film was a chore and a half. the damn projector burned the film up 20 minutes in and we had to go see the 3D showing (ugh). In short, it took almost 4 hours to see a 2 hour film. Still, I received 3 movie passes for later use. yay! But I digress...
Captain America: The First Avenger - At long last, Cap gets an honest to goodness origin film, with a budget and everything (The less said about the three awful movies made in the 70s and 90s, the better). Of course, we all know it's a tie-in for The Avengers movie next year, same as every Marvel film for the last three years. But that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, is it a good movie? Well yes and no.
First off, Chris Evans is great as Steve Rogers aka Captain America. He elevates the material and is the film's beating heart. He's so genuine in his desire to support his country that it almost makes you wipe away 70 years of cynicism and buy war bonds. I also liked his friendship with Buckey (Sebastian Stan). Hayley Atwell gives an enjoyable performance as a not dead weight female soldier by the name of Peggy Carter. It's a shame there aren't more scenes between her and Steve Rogers. Stanley Tucci lends gravitas to the film, and every other thing out of Tommy Lee Jones's mouth makes me chuckle. Hugo Weaving and Toby Jones are both decently played as villains, although I wish they had better material to work with.
When the movie starts in 1940s America it's wonderful. It sucks you in and holds you. A time where America was, indisputably the good guy. There's a warm bronze glow about things, and Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) bears a vague resemblance to Clark Gable. It feels period and well put together. We sympathize with Steve and his big hearted desire to join the Army. And is he small! It's a credit to CGI that this effect came off so well.
Then later on in the movie, the villains create laser guns. It's kind of baffling to me that the filmmakers would bail on that 1940s nostalgia so early on in the film. Nazi's with vaporization lasers! oh no! And it doesn't quite work for me. Couldn't the Cosmic Cube's benefits to the Nazis have been a little more subtle? Like creating a hydrogen bomb subtle? Or rocket fuel (these are just off of the top of my head)? Because we soon have a case of bloodless bodiless combat ladies and gentlemen. And that's neat and easy from a gravedigger's perspective, but from a dramatic prospective it rings rather hollow. It's a movie about WWII, and we have one bloody and shocking moment in the entire movie. I feel like they saved all the blood for that moment. Bottomline: WWII + over the top Flash Gordon tech = no no. Still, everyone stays fairly serious about it, and that helps the audience swallow the conceit.
Random unorganized thoughts
America turning down willing volunteers for the army? My, 1940s were a different time.
My opinions on the Red Skull makeup (meh) haven't changed since I first saw it. And no one in the film seems concerned in the slightest when they see it! "Eh, must be Wednesday."
Whilst I do care for Steve and his journey, his journey is fairly simple. A few twists and turns would have been nice.
The fights scenes were riveting and quite enjoyable. A lot of nice metal clanging noises and good demonstrations of "peak athletic abilities".
I kinda wish Cap had taken the time and broken up the whole Holocaust thing. I guess SuperNazis with lasers, jets and superbombs is a higher calling. but only just.
As expected, 3D adds absolutely nothing. See it only if your 2D projector burns up all the film.
All in all, a mixed bag, but an enjoyable, if forgettable film. Captain America gets a
B- Now hurry up with the goddamn Avengers movie!
Captain America: The First Avenger - At long last, Cap gets an honest to goodness origin film, with a budget and everything (The less said about the three awful movies made in the 70s and 90s, the better). Of course, we all know it's a tie-in for The Avengers movie next year, same as every Marvel film for the last three years. But that doesn't matter. At the end of the day, is it a good movie? Well yes and no.
First off, Chris Evans is great as Steve Rogers aka Captain America. He elevates the material and is the film's beating heart. He's so genuine in his desire to support his country that it almost makes you wipe away 70 years of cynicism and buy war bonds. I also liked his friendship with Buckey (Sebastian Stan). Hayley Atwell gives an enjoyable performance as a not dead weight female soldier by the name of Peggy Carter. It's a shame there aren't more scenes between her and Steve Rogers. Stanley Tucci lends gravitas to the film, and every other thing out of Tommy Lee Jones's mouth makes me chuckle. Hugo Weaving and Toby Jones are both decently played as villains, although I wish they had better material to work with.
When the movie starts in 1940s America it's wonderful. It sucks you in and holds you. A time where America was, indisputably the good guy. There's a warm bronze glow about things, and Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) bears a vague resemblance to Clark Gable. It feels period and well put together. We sympathize with Steve and his big hearted desire to join the Army. And is he small! It's a credit to CGI that this effect came off so well.
Then later on in the movie, the villains create laser guns. It's kind of baffling to me that the filmmakers would bail on that 1940s nostalgia so early on in the film. Nazi's with vaporization lasers! oh no! And it doesn't quite work for me. Couldn't the Cosmic Cube's benefits to the Nazis have been a little more subtle? Like creating a hydrogen bomb subtle? Or rocket fuel (these are just off of the top of my head)? Because we soon have a case of bloodless bodiless combat ladies and gentlemen. And that's neat and easy from a gravedigger's perspective, but from a dramatic prospective it rings rather hollow. It's a movie about WWII, and we have one bloody and shocking moment in the entire movie. I feel like they saved all the blood for that moment. Bottomline: WWII + over the top Flash Gordon tech = no no. Still, everyone stays fairly serious about it, and that helps the audience swallow the conceit.
Random unorganized thoughts
America turning down willing volunteers for the army? My, 1940s were a different time.
My opinions on the Red Skull makeup (meh) haven't changed since I first saw it. And no one in the film seems concerned in the slightest when they see it! "Eh, must be Wednesday."
Whilst I do care for Steve and his journey, his journey is fairly simple. A few twists and turns would have been nice.
The fights scenes were riveting and quite enjoyable. A lot of nice metal clanging noises and good demonstrations of "peak athletic abilities".
I kinda wish Cap had taken the time and broken up the whole Holocaust thing. I guess SuperNazis with lasers, jets and superbombs is a higher calling. but only just.
As expected, 3D adds absolutely nothing. See it only if your 2D projector burns up all the film.
All in all, a mixed bag, but an enjoyable, if forgettable film. Captain America gets a
B- Now hurry up with the goddamn Avengers movie!
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II
I can't remember who said that the ending is the most important part of a story (most likely multiple sources). But they're right. Give the audience a good ending, and you leave them salivating to hear the story again. Regardless, if every previous Potter film to date has seemed to wimp on the ending, it's because none of those were the true end to the story. This is THE end of the Potter franchise. And you'd be hard pressed to find a better ending chapter of a story. But I'm getting ahead of myself. It all started 10 (actually 9 and 3/4) years ago with these movies and almost 14 years ago for the books.
A strange orphaned boy with a strange scar, some wicked relatives, and a cupboard under the stairs. This is where the journey began for every loyal Potter fan. My journey began when I was, gosh, maybe 10 or 11. Harry's starting age. A parent came to the school library and introduced my class to this book and Louis Sachaar's Holes. I'm sure there were others, but those two stuck in my mind. Anywho, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had us captivated, and school closed for the summer about a page before Harry became a wizard. Then summer began, and I forgot all about Harry. The following summer, my dad commented on the popularity of the second Harry Potter book and I vaguely remembered the first book. I bought both and the rest, as they say, is history.
I will do the obvious thing and review the films as a cohesive whole before getting to the final chapter. It is one massive story so be patient. Chris Columbus's films have been at times lynched unfairly. True, there are pacing problems, particularly in the first film (Sorcerer's Stone)'s second half. They are perhaps shot too pedestrian in places. But Columbus was a fine director of children and managed to wrangle decent performances from a group of children. Children, not child actors. He and John Williams also perfectly captured the aura of mystique of going to Hogwarts. Go back (I'll wait) and watch the scene with the children slowly going on the boats to the school. Tell me that's not the stuff of movie magic.
His Chamber of Secrets had many well shot sequences, some decent horror, and effects that hold up quite well. It again featured many of Britain's best actors, best of all Kenneth Branagh. I enjoyed both Columbus films more than the third film by Alfonso Cuaron. It was artfully shot, but lacked the charm of the books and replaced it with something more voodoo on the bayou. Simply put. Columbus got the style of J.K. Rowling better than Cuaron. Yes, PoA had good performances from the children and Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman, but one of my favorite books got the least likable treatment onscreen. I will ponder to this day how that happened.
The fourth film, Goblet of Fire had the most material translatable to cinema of any of the films prior to the one I'm supposed to be reviewing. Ralph Fiennes endgame entrance was the stuff of nightmares, and the dragon/maze sequences were exhilarating. Mike Newell did an admirable job, and the style was British again. Alas, Goblet is the most overlooked due to a fair lack of character development for anyone that isn't Harry, simply because this was the other film in the series that should have gotten two films. There was too much in those 700+ pages to bring the silver screen, and parts of the film still feel fragmented. I don't think anyone bemoans the lack of SPEW, but the Quidditch World Cup the film takes the time to build up to? Sirius Black? A lot was forgotten that would have made two complete films instead of one fragmented, if occasionally awesome film.
On the other hand, the fifth movie, Order of the Phoenix, was probably the best prior to seven parts one and two. Paradoxically it came from what is widely considered the weakest and most padded book in the series (magical house cleaning is just as dull as muggle house cleaning).
Movie six, The Half Blood Prince was a little unsatisfying due to a plethora of exposition and a lack of emphasis on the level of danger present in the book. What we received instead is some well delivered comedy and excellent performances particularly from the main three actors. In the end, a decent benchmark film. And so, I bring you the Deathly Hallows, part II, the second half of the most well crafted Potter film to date.
In Deathly Hallows Part II, we come back exactly where Part I left off. Dearly Devoted Dobby is dead. Harry and friends plan to break into Gringotts and then Hogwarts, with the aim of destroying the last of the Horcruxes. Horcruxes are objects with part of Voldemort's soul concealed inside, tethering him to life and hence, making him immortal. Voldemort is growing both increasingly unhinged and wise to Harry's plans. Both the forces of good and evil mass armies, with the magical world at stake. The battleground: Hogwarts.
This battle is, essentially, the showpiece of the movie. Though it will undoubtedly be the most talked about aspect for some, this flashy battle is actually not quite as eye catching as some of the quieter moments in the film. A discussion with a goblin and a wandmaker. An especially moving scene with certain paternal ghosts, and a fair few character's death scenes...
The battle is great and well shot. Yet the chaos of battle would be nothing without characters we love and care about square in the middle of it. Otherwise, this would be Transformers3, which it distinctly is not. Virtually everyone minus one or two characters (where's Percy?) make an appearance somewhere in this film. I confess, even after reading the final book, I still was uneasy about who would be left alive. There are a decent number of casualties in this film (and let's be honest, the entire series.) J.K. Rowling has never shied from death, and has an almost sadistic affinity for killing any parent figure to Harry. They all make an appearance in a scene that should leave everyone in tears. In fact I would recommend bringing plenty of fluids to this film because you will cry everything out before the end. It's not a kid's film. Like saying that will stop them from going, or dim-witted parents from taking them.
The performances are all there. Daniel Radcliffe acts his heart out. There can be no doubt he is not just another pretty blank faced protagonist as Harry. Ralph Fiennes delivers his scariest performance yet as the truly irredeemable Voldemort. Everyone else, regardless of whether they have one line or none, gives it their all. Hats off to Alan Rickman and the editing team for delivering that extra wallop to the back of my throat with the mother of all flashback stories. It was a joy to see Jason Isaccs, Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, David Thewlis, Julie Walters and Robbie Coltrane give it one last wonderful go. And Matthew Lewis gets his Henry V moment. A cast of this magnitude and heavyweight acting, together for the last time. What a joy.
The best moments from the book are intact. A few are made better (the book's final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort was less action, more talk and mild confusion). The film is rather light on humor but hey. It's a war film.
The epilogue is a moment of levity with some not quite convincing aging effects, but it's a small critique about a damn near perfect film. The critics have spoken. The public has spoken. I have spoken. It's a great film. If fantasy's not your thing and you don't know a Muggle from a mushroom, stay away. But you probably wouldn't have had to read this far to know that.
But I digress. I'm getting as longwinded as J.K. can be. See it. I have, and will probably do at least once more.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II gets an A.
A strange orphaned boy with a strange scar, some wicked relatives, and a cupboard under the stairs. This is where the journey began for every loyal Potter fan. My journey began when I was, gosh, maybe 10 or 11. Harry's starting age. A parent came to the school library and introduced my class to this book and Louis Sachaar's Holes. I'm sure there were others, but those two stuck in my mind. Anywho, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone had us captivated, and school closed for the summer about a page before Harry became a wizard. Then summer began, and I forgot all about Harry. The following summer, my dad commented on the popularity of the second Harry Potter book and I vaguely remembered the first book. I bought both and the rest, as they say, is history.
I will do the obvious thing and review the films as a cohesive whole before getting to the final chapter. It is one massive story so be patient. Chris Columbus's films have been at times lynched unfairly. True, there are pacing problems, particularly in the first film (Sorcerer's Stone)'s second half. They are perhaps shot too pedestrian in places. But Columbus was a fine director of children and managed to wrangle decent performances from a group of children. Children, not child actors. He and John Williams also perfectly captured the aura of mystique of going to Hogwarts. Go back (I'll wait) and watch the scene with the children slowly going on the boats to the school. Tell me that's not the stuff of movie magic.
His Chamber of Secrets had many well shot sequences, some decent horror, and effects that hold up quite well. It again featured many of Britain's best actors, best of all Kenneth Branagh. I enjoyed both Columbus films more than the third film by Alfonso Cuaron. It was artfully shot, but lacked the charm of the books and replaced it with something more voodoo on the bayou. Simply put. Columbus got the style of J.K. Rowling better than Cuaron. Yes, PoA had good performances from the children and Gary Oldman and Alan Rickman, but one of my favorite books got the least likable treatment onscreen. I will ponder to this day how that happened.
The fourth film, Goblet of Fire had the most material translatable to cinema of any of the films prior to the one I'm supposed to be reviewing. Ralph Fiennes endgame entrance was the stuff of nightmares, and the dragon/maze sequences were exhilarating. Mike Newell did an admirable job, and the style was British again. Alas, Goblet is the most overlooked due to a fair lack of character development for anyone that isn't Harry, simply because this was the other film in the series that should have gotten two films. There was too much in those 700+ pages to bring the silver screen, and parts of the film still feel fragmented. I don't think anyone bemoans the lack of SPEW, but the Quidditch World Cup the film takes the time to build up to? Sirius Black? A lot was forgotten that would have made two complete films instead of one fragmented, if occasionally awesome film.
On the other hand, the fifth movie, Order of the Phoenix, was probably the best prior to seven parts one and two. Paradoxically it came from what is widely considered the weakest and most padded book in the series (magical house cleaning is just as dull as muggle house cleaning).
Movie six, The Half Blood Prince was a little unsatisfying due to a plethora of exposition and a lack of emphasis on the level of danger present in the book. What we received instead is some well delivered comedy and excellent performances particularly from the main three actors. In the end, a decent benchmark film. And so, I bring you the Deathly Hallows, part II, the second half of the most well crafted Potter film to date.
In Deathly Hallows Part II, we come back exactly where Part I left off. Dearly Devoted Dobby is dead. Harry and friends plan to break into Gringotts and then Hogwarts, with the aim of destroying the last of the Horcruxes. Horcruxes are objects with part of Voldemort's soul concealed inside, tethering him to life and hence, making him immortal. Voldemort is growing both increasingly unhinged and wise to Harry's plans. Both the forces of good and evil mass armies, with the magical world at stake. The battleground: Hogwarts.
This battle is, essentially, the showpiece of the movie. Though it will undoubtedly be the most talked about aspect for some, this flashy battle is actually not quite as eye catching as some of the quieter moments in the film. A discussion with a goblin and a wandmaker. An especially moving scene with certain paternal ghosts, and a fair few character's death scenes...
The battle is great and well shot. Yet the chaos of battle would be nothing without characters we love and care about square in the middle of it. Otherwise, this would be Transformers3, which it distinctly is not. Virtually everyone minus one or two characters (where's Percy?) make an appearance somewhere in this film. I confess, even after reading the final book, I still was uneasy about who would be left alive. There are a decent number of casualties in this film (and let's be honest, the entire series.) J.K. Rowling has never shied from death, and has an almost sadistic affinity for killing any parent figure to Harry. They all make an appearance in a scene that should leave everyone in tears. In fact I would recommend bringing plenty of fluids to this film because you will cry everything out before the end. It's not a kid's film. Like saying that will stop them from going, or dim-witted parents from taking them.
The performances are all there. Daniel Radcliffe acts his heart out. There can be no doubt he is not just another pretty blank faced protagonist as Harry. Ralph Fiennes delivers his scariest performance yet as the truly irredeemable Voldemort. Everyone else, regardless of whether they have one line or none, gives it their all. Hats off to Alan Rickman and the editing team for delivering that extra wallop to the back of my throat with the mother of all flashback stories. It was a joy to see Jason Isaccs, Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon, David Thewlis, Julie Walters and Robbie Coltrane give it one last wonderful go. And Matthew Lewis gets his Henry V moment. A cast of this magnitude and heavyweight acting, together for the last time. What a joy.
The best moments from the book are intact. A few are made better (the book's final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort was less action, more talk and mild confusion). The film is rather light on humor but hey. It's a war film.
The epilogue is a moment of levity with some not quite convincing aging effects, but it's a small critique about a damn near perfect film. The critics have spoken. The public has spoken. I have spoken. It's a great film. If fantasy's not your thing and you don't know a Muggle from a mushroom, stay away. But you probably wouldn't have had to read this far to know that.
But I digress. I'm getting as longwinded as J.K. can be. See it. I have, and will probably do at least once more.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II gets an A.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Part 2 (by request) X-Men: First Class
X-Men: First Class - This film is set against the backdrop of the Cold War circa 1962. Mutants Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensher (Michael Fassbender) meet for the first time whilst in pursuit of another mutant named Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) who is intent on starting the Cuban Missile Crisis. Along the way new friends are scooped up, alliances are broken and made, and a surprisingly thoughtful story is constructed regarding differences, both physical and ideological.
This film was a surprise in every way. X-Men, in my opinion was the finest of the original series. X-Men 2 was good but ultimately the middle act was too damn laborious. X-Men 3 was fun but shallow and, by killing most of the interesting characters, ultimately left the series nowhere to go and X-Men Origins: Wolverine was bad in every way possible. Needless to say I was expecting a terrible unnecessary film from First Class. Looks like the fifth time is the charm. X-Men First Class in my opinion actually improves on the original series. Is it a reboot, a prequel, or a reboot/prequel? Really not sure. But it's a damn fine yarn in any case.
Let me start, as usual, with the performances. James McAvoy is great as Charles Xavier. Xavier is perhaps most people's leat favorite of the X-Men. Wheelchair bound, sage-like and afraid to use his power to do anything useful for the team. Matthew Vaughn and McAvoy have crafted a character that abuses his powers at the start of the film. and through his training of other mutants gradually learns responsibility. His comfortable sheltered adolescence plays an interesting contrast against Erik's life. Erik spent several years experimented on and abused in a Nazi death camp by the villain Shaw. Michael Fassbender plays his character with a cold, James Bond like pointedness. The relationship between Charles and Eric (or Prof X and Magneto) is the star of the film, and it's a pity they don't get more time together. Kevin Bacon is a very good villain, and he's never more chilling than in the first 10 minutes of the film. Maybe it's the German.
This film doesn't make the mistake virtually all of the past movies have of giving us too many characters to focus on. Nicholas Hoult and Jennifer Lawrence are strong as Beast and Mystique. January Jones is okay. She basically plays a superpowered version of her character Betty from Mad Men (Shaw would be Don Draper in that metaphor). But she isn't required to do much other than wear sexy clothing and look cold. Hee. A woman named January Jones plays a character named Emma Frost though. How perfect is that? Alliteration and all, if Stan Lee could go back in time and change the characters name to this actress's, he would.
There are some strong connections between America vs. Russia, Capitalism vs. Communism and Homo-sapiens vs. Mutants. Perhaps the sequel will involve race riots. Viewers will likely be divided as to whether Magneto (isolation/violent resistance) or Xavier's (coexistance/integration) ideologies are correct. Given that America and Russia are allies now and most of the modern world (except us) has integrated communism and capitalism, Xavier's is the method history tends to prove correct. Given though, that this is not just an ideology war but an evolutionary one, the mutants might just win in the end.
The film has a dark start (and why not? given that it starts in Nazi Germany) but also has lots of humor. The story and the performances are the stars of the film, but the effects don't dissapoint either. There are some fairly awe inspiring moments and cool uses of powers. Honestly, the movie could have been even longer and I wouldn't mind. It's just that enjoyable. Not everyone might feel so. I was told afterward how anachronistic some of the female costumes were. Come to think of it, the skirts were a little too mini. This may distract some people. Regardless, this is the strongest X-Men movie yet, a well made film in general, and the best film I've yet seen this year. It's so well done that if there are plot holes you feel like making excuses for them.
X-Men: First Class gets an A-
This film was a surprise in every way. X-Men, in my opinion was the finest of the original series. X-Men 2 was good but ultimately the middle act was too damn laborious. X-Men 3 was fun but shallow and, by killing most of the interesting characters, ultimately left the series nowhere to go and X-Men Origins: Wolverine was bad in every way possible. Needless to say I was expecting a terrible unnecessary film from First Class. Looks like the fifth time is the charm. X-Men First Class in my opinion actually improves on the original series. Is it a reboot, a prequel, or a reboot/prequel? Really not sure. But it's a damn fine yarn in any case.
Let me start, as usual, with the performances. James McAvoy is great as Charles Xavier. Xavier is perhaps most people's leat favorite of the X-Men. Wheelchair bound, sage-like and afraid to use his power to do anything useful for the team. Matthew Vaughn and McAvoy have crafted a character that abuses his powers at the start of the film. and through his training of other mutants gradually learns responsibility. His comfortable sheltered adolescence plays an interesting contrast against Erik's life. Erik spent several years experimented on and abused in a Nazi death camp by the villain Shaw. Michael Fassbender plays his character with a cold, James Bond like pointedness. The relationship between Charles and Eric (or Prof X and Magneto) is the star of the film, and it's a pity they don't get more time together. Kevin Bacon is a very good villain, and he's never more chilling than in the first 10 minutes of the film. Maybe it's the German.
This film doesn't make the mistake virtually all of the past movies have of giving us too many characters to focus on. Nicholas Hoult and Jennifer Lawrence are strong as Beast and Mystique. January Jones is okay. She basically plays a superpowered version of her character Betty from Mad Men (Shaw would be Don Draper in that metaphor). But she isn't required to do much other than wear sexy clothing and look cold. Hee. A woman named January Jones plays a character named Emma Frost though. How perfect is that? Alliteration and all, if Stan Lee could go back in time and change the characters name to this actress's, he would.
There are some strong connections between America vs. Russia, Capitalism vs. Communism and Homo-sapiens vs. Mutants. Perhaps the sequel will involve race riots. Viewers will likely be divided as to whether Magneto (isolation/violent resistance) or Xavier's (coexistance/integration) ideologies are correct. Given that America and Russia are allies now and most of the modern world (except us) has integrated communism and capitalism, Xavier's is the method history tends to prove correct. Given though, that this is not just an ideology war but an evolutionary one, the mutants might just win in the end.
The film has a dark start (and why not? given that it starts in Nazi Germany) but also has lots of humor. The story and the performances are the stars of the film, but the effects don't dissapoint either. There are some fairly awe inspiring moments and cool uses of powers. Honestly, the movie could have been even longer and I wouldn't mind. It's just that enjoyable. Not everyone might feel so. I was told afterward how anachronistic some of the female costumes were. Come to think of it, the skirts were a little too mini. This may distract some people. Regardless, this is the strongest X-Men movie yet, a well made film in general, and the best film I've yet seen this year. It's so well done that if there are plot holes you feel like making excuses for them.
X-Men: First Class gets an A-
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Stuff I should've reviewed part 1: Thor
This is the first of two films I meant to review and didn't. However, their time on DVD is yet to come, and the masses must be told, damnit!
Thor - Kenneth Branagh's combination of Marvel comics and old Norse mythology gives us Thor (Chris Helmsworth), a brash arrogant thunder god in Asgard, one of seven planes of reality (ours is another). However, Asgard is in a time of peace, and peace is never a great time to be a warrior. Thor at the slightest provocation seeks a fight with a race of Frost Giants, and is banished by his father Oden the one eyed (Anthony Hopkins in easily his best turn in years) to Earth.
Let me start by saying that, while this movie is maybe not as great as it could have been, for Thor to not be a miserable failure is a hell of an achievement. I chalk it up to Kenneth Branagh for his skill with storytelling and ability to simplify a dense story. This movie could have easily come off as ridiculous. Kudos as well to Branagh's effects team for making Asgard a beautiful magical looking place with a beautiful rainbow bridge that does not scream camp at the top of it's lungs.
While I'm handing out accolades, how about several to the movie's main three players, Chris Helmsworth, Anthony Hopkins, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki? Each actor nails their respective part. Hiddleston in particular holds my interest with his interesting (almost Shakespearean) character arc and will be my chief reason for rewatching the film.
The deciding factor for whether you leave liking or scoffing at this film will be Thor's transition to Earth. For me, it was a fairly easy switch. For other people, this may not jell. It's one of the more subjective aspects of the film.
What I think has more people on the fence, and I count myself in their ranks, is Natalie Portman's part. Let me have a soapbox moment here. Can movie producers just stop, and I mean for a long time, insulting us with token love interests that have no personality? Can these films for once be the boy's clubs they are meant to be? Sex and the City never tried to pretend that it was for boys too by mistakenly giving any of the men on that show a notable personality.
I think it's a case of Spiderman and Superman, two majorly successful movie franchises with prominent love interests, kind of damning the rest of the comic book movies into following the mold they left. But the thing is, not every hero has a Mary Jane or a Lois Lane.
Batman has had maybe four loves in the duration of his comics. That's 70 years, 4 love interests. So few that they invented Katie Holmes's character for the reboot. I don't think Thor ever had a long term love interest of notice, unless you count battle. Maybe Red Sonja or that random nurse.
Anyway this is the point I'd like to make to movie producers in general: You're not going to get females to flock to these movies. The younger boys will be irritated that this romance crap is getting in the way of the punching and fighting. The older boys will feel their intelligence insulted at the lightweight quality of the romance. So who is Natalie Portman there for? Answer: nobody. Demographics that say every comic book movie needs a love interest. And I'd argue, No. They don't. But you'll keep giving them to us in the hope of getting a few more fringe viewers from the other side of the pool rather than give the boys what they really want.
It doesn't help that ultimately Portman is miscast and her female co-star Kat Dennings is infinitely more charming and interesting. It should have been Thor and Kat Dennings. Sequel idea!: Thor and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Boom. You're welcome Hollywood.
This film is a lot of fun. There's a fun drinking contest and a bunch of funny one-liners. The action is well shot in a way that you can actually see what is happening. God I hope this becomes a trend again elsewhere in Hollywood. The supporting cast is strong, with Stellan Skarsgard as a believable scientist, and Jeremy Renner (of The Hurt Locker) as Hawkeye! Cool. This movie is yet another continuity brick on the road that is The Avengers. And boy had that movie better be good.
So where does Thor stand in the new Marvel line-up? Quite well actually. Better than Iron Man 2. Not quite there with Iron Man. Thor gets a B.
Thor - Kenneth Branagh's combination of Marvel comics and old Norse mythology gives us Thor (Chris Helmsworth), a brash arrogant thunder god in Asgard, one of seven planes of reality (ours is another). However, Asgard is in a time of peace, and peace is never a great time to be a warrior. Thor at the slightest provocation seeks a fight with a race of Frost Giants, and is banished by his father Oden the one eyed (Anthony Hopkins in easily his best turn in years) to Earth.
Let me start by saying that, while this movie is maybe not as great as it could have been, for Thor to not be a miserable failure is a hell of an achievement. I chalk it up to Kenneth Branagh for his skill with storytelling and ability to simplify a dense story. This movie could have easily come off as ridiculous. Kudos as well to Branagh's effects team for making Asgard a beautiful magical looking place with a beautiful rainbow bridge that does not scream camp at the top of it's lungs.
While I'm handing out accolades, how about several to the movie's main three players, Chris Helmsworth, Anthony Hopkins, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki? Each actor nails their respective part. Hiddleston in particular holds my interest with his interesting (almost Shakespearean) character arc and will be my chief reason for rewatching the film.
The deciding factor for whether you leave liking or scoffing at this film will be Thor's transition to Earth. For me, it was a fairly easy switch. For other people, this may not jell. It's one of the more subjective aspects of the film.
What I think has more people on the fence, and I count myself in their ranks, is Natalie Portman's part. Let me have a soapbox moment here. Can movie producers just stop, and I mean for a long time, insulting us with token love interests that have no personality? Can these films for once be the boy's clubs they are meant to be? Sex and the City never tried to pretend that it was for boys too by mistakenly giving any of the men on that show a notable personality.
I think it's a case of Spiderman and Superman, two majorly successful movie franchises with prominent love interests, kind of damning the rest of the comic book movies into following the mold they left. But the thing is, not every hero has a Mary Jane or a Lois Lane.
Batman has had maybe four loves in the duration of his comics. That's 70 years, 4 love interests. So few that they invented Katie Holmes's character for the reboot. I don't think Thor ever had a long term love interest of notice, unless you count battle. Maybe Red Sonja or that random nurse.
Anyway this is the point I'd like to make to movie producers in general: You're not going to get females to flock to these movies. The younger boys will be irritated that this romance crap is getting in the way of the punching and fighting. The older boys will feel their intelligence insulted at the lightweight quality of the romance. So who is Natalie Portman there for? Answer: nobody. Demographics that say every comic book movie needs a love interest. And I'd argue, No. They don't. But you'll keep giving them to us in the hope of getting a few more fringe viewers from the other side of the pool rather than give the boys what they really want.
It doesn't help that ultimately Portman is miscast and her female co-star Kat Dennings is infinitely more charming and interesting. It should have been Thor and Kat Dennings. Sequel idea!: Thor and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Boom. You're welcome Hollywood.
This film is a lot of fun. There's a fun drinking contest and a bunch of funny one-liners. The action is well shot in a way that you can actually see what is happening. God I hope this becomes a trend again elsewhere in Hollywood. The supporting cast is strong, with Stellan Skarsgard as a believable scientist, and Jeremy Renner (of The Hurt Locker) as Hawkeye! Cool. This movie is yet another continuity brick on the road that is The Avengers. And boy had that movie better be good.
So where does Thor stand in the new Marvel line-up? Quite well actually. Better than Iron Man 2. Not quite there with Iron Man. Thor gets a B.
Green Lantern. Man, I haven't done this in ages.
Green Lantern - Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) receives a ring from a mysterious dying alien and finds that through it his thought can be turned into reality. He uses the ring to fight a fear-based enemy Parralax, which is not a pharmaceutical drug but an intergalactic glob of space doom.
You know, for a story of such intergalactic peril, it's hard for me to remember anything of significance. The movie is literally slipping from my mind, but I'll do my best to diagnose the film.
The Good: The Green Lantern planet of Oa, and the power ring effects are pretty. The performances aren't bad. Ryan Reynolds is a good actor, even though he wouldn't have been my choice for Hall Jordan. Peter Saarsgard is also good as Hector Hammond, and the film would have benefited from more of him. Whenever Mark Strong appears, I feel like caring. There's a training sequence that is easily the most entertaining thing in this film. Mark Strong just has a gravitas and an intensity that the movie needed more of. That's not to say that the rest of the film is full of laughs. It's not. Humor would have also added a lot to the film.
The Bad: About that lack of humor. I'm going to blame most of the faults in this film on the writers. Nearly all of them have only written for television. They've all produced more than written, and two of them have written for No Ordinary Family and the bad half of Heroes. Oy. To quote the Mythbusters in a pseudo-plumber voice: "Well there's your problem." There are a bunch of superfluous scenes and some fairly random cuts to unrelated stories scattered through the film. Nearly everyone mentions Hal's dad's jet fighter fatality to him at least once, just to make sure we remember. Then there's the problem that the audience is supposed to believe two test pilots, a senator, and biology scientist all know each other stretching back to childhood or are related. And two of them receive superpowers. It's not like this is going to ruin the film. It's just another thing that subtly tells you someone wasn't trying. And that's the gist I get from this film.
The film basically has no real antagonist. There's a floating cloud of blackish-yellow Parralax doom, but it never really poses a threat. It's kind of laughable that Hal Jordan travels to Oa and back to Earth twice before Parralax could conceivably reach either. Thank goodness when it gets to Earth it attacks the half of that planet that's in broad daylight, or you'd never find it. Hector Hammond should be a better nemesis, as he has telekinesis and telepathy and an actual personality, but the film spends too much time trying to make him sympathetic rather than a true villain. He has no real scheme or goals, he's just a victim of Parralax. I know the reason the filmmakers went with these two sad sacks is they want to save Sinestro for a sequel, but judging from the box-office returns (only $50 million on the opening weekend? for shame.) they should have hedged their bets and spent that rainy day money early.
Because there's no real villain, the problem Hal faces is...self doubt. How exciting. He has substantial fears, which is exactly the sort of thing I would think should probably disqualify someone from being a test pilot. Anywho, I think Hal's real problem is a lack of imagination. A minigun, chainsaw, and a couple of jet fighters are the most interesting things Hal does with the ring.
The Ugly: The film has a drastic overuse of CGI. Green Lantern should at LEAST have a real honest to goodness costume. Superman's from another planet too, but his costume is made of honest to goodness cloth. It's hard to really be interested in a hero when 85% of his body is digital. And when his power is to create green CGI from the power of will, there should be more creative uses than what we see. What should be Hal's iconic entrance into the public eye has him instead - I kid you not - rollar skating a helicopter through a series of Matchbox Car-style loops to safety. Like a Cartoon. I think Daredevil slicing a man in half with a subway train was a better superhero introduction. Even the characters later admit how stupid and un-iconic an introduction Green Lantern's display of power was, which means the writers probably also knew.
Bottom line, the movie is ho hum. There's just no wow factor. Aliens and power rings and telepathy seem to faze almost nobody in this film. And if they're not interested, I'm not interested. There are few moments of power, depth, or interest or anything. Therefore, I give the film a
C-
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)