Batman Returns is not a perfect film in the empirical sense of the word: there really is not quite enough Batman presence, some of the fight scenes (particularly with Catwoman) don't make sense, and some of the plot points are a bit more fantasy than reality (albeit that's probably intentional). But a mathematical stacking of pros and cons is not what makes a film great or horrible, it's the impact of it and the merit of its artistry. In this respect, Batman Returns is a masterpiece.
Tim Burton's major contribution to Batman in general, despite his frustrating insistence on being fascinated with the villains, is giving him back, and refining, his dark nature. Burton, along with Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns (graphic novel) and a few others, re-imagined Batman into the Dark Knight, perfecting him into the somewhat frightening crime fighter Bob Kane was getting at back in 1939. "Dark" characters are often created by piling on violence, sex, or drug use, but Batman needs none of that to be scary. In fact he's better without it. He's dark because that's what he is, and there's a purity to it that no other super-hero can touch. Tim Burton pioneered this image of him in Batman, then mastered in Returns.
Batman Returns centers around four characters: Batman, Catwoman, The Penguin and Max Shreck. These four principles are the force of this movie, and the film's plot serves as an elaborate character study of each of them. Every one of them is both friend and enemy of each other character at different points of the movie, until the conflict between them throws the plot into a frenzy of senseless mayhem at the conclusion, finally succumbing to the insanity of its principles. For this reason, the ebb and flow of the plot is a bit off-kilter, and that would be a problem if any of those four performances weren't absolutely fabulous. Describing someone's acting never does it any justice, so I won't try to get into details, but it should be noted that all four of them spar with each other at full power.
The Batmobile is back and still kicking, and Burton and company thought of some great ways of tinkering with their toy, none of which I will reveal now. Suffice to say the Batmobile offers up some of the grandest entertainment in the film, involving chase sequences that stand up to this day due to the sheer cleverness of the situation. The Dark Knight's suit is more regal in this one, slightly grayed, taller and less compacted. Batman looks something like a king in his outfit. As for Michael Keaton, he proves yet again why Bob Kane gave him the nod for the role in 1989. It doesn't matter that the man is not all physically imposing, because that face of his looks so terrifying and dark in the Cowl that his presence is magnified two times over. Keaton's rasp is still on point, able to transform his body language and his voice perfectly under the suit. It should also be noted that Burton's Batman is quieter than anyone else's, including Frank Miller's. I love that. Batman is always too chatty everywhere else. As for Catwoman, Batman Returns perfected her. There is no reason to ever do Catwoman again in any work of fiction, because you will never again create a character so fascinating, sympathetic or more tragic. Burton took a nothing character, some one- dimensional sultry cat-burglar, and made her a vicious look at sexism and the persecution of innocence in an ugly, cruel world. Well done.
Danny deVito's Penguin is horribly ugly, completely hate-able, and rather pathetic, which is exactly what they were going for. He's a twisted animal with twice the anger and half the brains, not able to compete with Batman on any real level. But enter Max Shreck, a political monster whom the Penguin happens to have some dirt on, and The Penguin becomes a hand-puppet for Shreck, almost like Max testing to see if he could really make this abomination lovable. He has a mayor in office that doesn't always play ball, so he uses this thing to win the hearts of a Gotham City that is so desperate for hope they will latch onto anything. It's a cruel spectacle executed beautifully, and both actors give amazing turns. deVito will never get the credit he deserves for the film, because he makes you hate him so sincerely you forget to stop hating him when the credits roll. Christopher Walken is chilling, hateful and...(please don't ask me how he did this)...sympathetic. It's impossible to understand, but Walken somehow played Shreck so purely that it's hard not to respect him, even though he is a truly corrupt, twisted creature of a man.
The plot is imperfect, some of the fights are odd, and the plot is as much fantasy as that's possible in a movie set in a city, but it doesn't matter. Four fascinating, complicated characters are set into a boxing ring and told to go at it, and Batman Returns is the result. Not to mention the whole film is anchored by one of the most famous superheros of all time. It's a shame Batman gets upstaged by Burton's fascination with The Penguin, but it's a forgivable mistake in a story that's so deeply affecting, and so dark. That's the key thing Returns has that the original kind of missed: soul.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Review of "Batman" (1989)
On Superman's first major appearance in the original 1979 movie with Christopher Reeve, the "man of steel" saves Lois Lane from plummeting down 900 stories from the top of one of Metropolis' skyscrapers and becoming a human pancake. Lane asks the inevitable question, "Who are you?" Superman's reply is simply "a friend". That's what Superman would say. He probably would not call himself "Superman" lest to seem too aware of his own super magnificence, and thankfully he didn't flex his arms like the ridiculous TV show of the 1950's. Fast forward 10 years. In the film Batman a similar scene occurs at the opening with Batman apprehending some down-trodden baddies. The baddies ask the same question as Lois Lane, but the answer was "I'm Batman". Almost any other response would have been superior: "I'm your worst nightmare.", "You don't need to know my name.", even "I'm Blinky the Killer Clown." But replying "I'm Batman" really was a tip-off that the script still needed serious work, a problem that continues to plague many films produced under the corporate Hollywood system. Having Batman say "I'm Batman" is sort of akin to Dracula saying "I'm the Count!" or worse "I'm a Vampire!" proceeded by a cruel Romanian laugh.
The problem with this movie is that it couldn't quite decide if it was going to be Frank Miller's "Dark Knight", which was more akin to the early 1940's strips by creator Bob Kane, or the campy 1960's show with Adam West climbing up buildings and meeting the likes of Jerry Lewis or Dean Martin on the way to the roof top. If it was trying to be like Miller and/or Kane, it wasn't mysterious enough. If it was trying to be like West, it wasn't silly enough. Certainly Jack Nicholson as The Joker is the inevitable casting choice, and since Tim Burton was at the helm, it seemed like a movie that was aiming for the dark overtones of a Miller and/or Kane story. However, the mystery surrounding the Joker and Batman wasn't quite there.
The main issue is that the movie lacks focus, as if the screenwriters had not quite thought the story through and realized what the themes should be. Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" may be the best Batman story since Bob Kane, and it certainly is a hard act to follow. Unfortunately, much of the movie is kind of a mess when you see it with a more critical eye. And I never quite felt for the characters in the way I did for the first two Superman movies.
Still, if you have never seen this movie, it is definitely worth a viewing. There are definitely some great moments. Kim Basinger as Vicky Vale is outstanding, and her relationship with Batman (and the Joker) is worth the price of admission. (Ever notice how DC comics' leading ladies' names are often alliterations?) And of course, even with a mediocre script, Nicholson as the Joker is a performance not to be missed. He is one of a few actors on the planet that make a sub-par script seem better.
The problem with this movie is that it couldn't quite decide if it was going to be Frank Miller's "Dark Knight", which was more akin to the early 1940's strips by creator Bob Kane, or the campy 1960's show with Adam West climbing up buildings and meeting the likes of Jerry Lewis or Dean Martin on the way to the roof top. If it was trying to be like Miller and/or Kane, it wasn't mysterious enough. If it was trying to be like West, it wasn't silly enough. Certainly Jack Nicholson as The Joker is the inevitable casting choice, and since Tim Burton was at the helm, it seemed like a movie that was aiming for the dark overtones of a Miller and/or Kane story. However, the mystery surrounding the Joker and Batman wasn't quite there.
The main issue is that the movie lacks focus, as if the screenwriters had not quite thought the story through and realized what the themes should be. Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" may be the best Batman story since Bob Kane, and it certainly is a hard act to follow. Unfortunately, much of the movie is kind of a mess when you see it with a more critical eye. And I never quite felt for the characters in the way I did for the first two Superman movies.
Still, if you have never seen this movie, it is definitely worth a viewing. There are definitely some great moments. Kim Basinger as Vicky Vale is outstanding, and her relationship with Batman (and the Joker) is worth the price of admission. (Ever notice how DC comics' leading ladies' names are often alliterations?) And of course, even with a mediocre script, Nicholson as the Joker is a performance not to be missed. He is one of a few actors on the planet that make a sub-par script seem better.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Review of "The Bourne Identity" (2002)
With a new Bourne upon us shortly, and per the request of a family member (Hi, Mom!) here are my two cents on this, the first entry in the now smash-hit espionage series. One quick note: I have not read the book series (shocking, I know) so I have no earthly clue how the film compares.
**Minor Spoilers Ahead!**
The Bourne Identity, based on Robert Ludlum's best-selling novel, tells the story of Jason Bourne, a black-ops agent working off the map for the United States government. When a mission goes awry, Bourne (Matt Damon) is left with a blank memory. As he follows the clues to reclaim his...uh...identity, Bourne runs into trouble with the authorities and teams up with Maria (Franka Potente), a transient young woman in whom he finds his only friend. As the two race around Europe, Bourne slowly rediscovers himself, while his supervisors in the U.S. attempt to track him down.
The premise of this film, admittedly, is tried-and-true: placing the audience in the shoes of a character. A la The Matrix, the protagonist here is completely ignorant. Therefore the world and story of the movie can be unfolded and explained without slowing the pace, because information new to the audience is also new to Bourne. When a second confused character (Maria) is introduced, that factor is doubled, permitting Bourne himself to introduce both parties to his knowledge of the espionage world. This method sucks the viewer into the story and creates a greater attachment than in a standard spy flick.
Adding to the attraction of the film is Matt Damon's everyman appeal. Believe me when I say that James Bond this is not! Damon has never been an action hero, nor does he look a stereotypical beefy action star, along the lines of Schwarzenegger. But in this case the casting is perfect, because Bourne himself is uncomfortable in his own body. Damon nails the part by maintaining a paranoid state of mind with perpetually moving eyes and nervous gestures. The German-born Potente is another casting coup, as her unique appearance is a breath of fresh air, eschewing cookie-cutter American beauty for an earthier, healthier doe-eyed look that is refreshingly effective. With a supporting cast completed by such reliables as Chris Cooper, Clive Owen, and Brian Cox, the movie's acting is scarcely noticeable, which creates a "believable" world of espionage.
That world is a paranoid world, one that director Doug Liman (Swingers), cinematographer Oliver Wood (Die Hard 2), and crew represent on screen very well. Wood utilizes constantly moving, often hand-held, cameras, and the editing team of Saar Kline (The Thin Red Line) & Christopher Rouse (The Italian Job) features jumpy, nervous editing, all of which brilliantly emulate Bourne's fragile yet kinetic mental state.
Speaking of The Italian Job, that's a decent comparison for The Bourne Identity. Although the latter is edgier and more complex, both have a European feel, with Bourne's obviously stemming from the entirely European setting. The old-fashioned yet physically beautiful locations are complemented by a rhythmic soundtrack that never soars but frequently hangs and lingers as the story proceeds.
The Bourne Identity is classified as an action flick, but the action is decidedly different than that in other movies of the same genre. Containing very few special effects or CGI, the action centers on motion and pursuit, endowing the film with a edgier, cat-and-mouse, more physical tone that is highlighted by a stellar car chase. Set in the middle of the movie, the sequence featuring a beat-up MG racing through the streets and alleys of Paris is the best cinematic chase since at least The Rock, if not long before that. The cat-and-mouse concept of the entire film is encapsulated in this quality set piece, which is more than just eye candy, serving also as a key turning point in the plot.
With surprisingly little face-to-face conflict present, scenes like this one must infuse the story with suspense, and that they do very well. While developmental parts are naturally but enjoyably slower, an underlying tension drives the entire story. Because it often spontaneously explodes to life early, that possibility persists throughout, moving it along like a people-mover, at a slow and steady pace that doesn't seem dangerous until something goes wrong.
Bottom Line: Rarely does an action-based movie feature such a compelling story and human characters. Five stars and then some for one of the most underrated and best action movies in recent years.
**Minor Spoilers Ahead!**
The Bourne Identity, based on Robert Ludlum's best-selling novel, tells the story of Jason Bourne, a black-ops agent working off the map for the United States government. When a mission goes awry, Bourne (Matt Damon) is left with a blank memory. As he follows the clues to reclaim his...uh...identity, Bourne runs into trouble with the authorities and teams up with Maria (Franka Potente), a transient young woman in whom he finds his only friend. As the two race around Europe, Bourne slowly rediscovers himself, while his supervisors in the U.S. attempt to track him down.
The premise of this film, admittedly, is tried-and-true: placing the audience in the shoes of a character. A la The Matrix, the protagonist here is completely ignorant. Therefore the world and story of the movie can be unfolded and explained without slowing the pace, because information new to the audience is also new to Bourne. When a second confused character (Maria) is introduced, that factor is doubled, permitting Bourne himself to introduce both parties to his knowledge of the espionage world. This method sucks the viewer into the story and creates a greater attachment than in a standard spy flick.
Adding to the attraction of the film is Matt Damon's everyman appeal. Believe me when I say that James Bond this is not! Damon has never been an action hero, nor does he look a stereotypical beefy action star, along the lines of Schwarzenegger. But in this case the casting is perfect, because Bourne himself is uncomfortable in his own body. Damon nails the part by maintaining a paranoid state of mind with perpetually moving eyes and nervous gestures. The German-born Potente is another casting coup, as her unique appearance is a breath of fresh air, eschewing cookie-cutter American beauty for an earthier, healthier doe-eyed look that is refreshingly effective. With a supporting cast completed by such reliables as Chris Cooper, Clive Owen, and Brian Cox, the movie's acting is scarcely noticeable, which creates a "believable" world of espionage.
That world is a paranoid world, one that director Doug Liman (Swingers), cinematographer Oliver Wood (Die Hard 2), and crew represent on screen very well. Wood utilizes constantly moving, often hand-held, cameras, and the editing team of Saar Kline (The Thin Red Line) & Christopher Rouse (The Italian Job) features jumpy, nervous editing, all of which brilliantly emulate Bourne's fragile yet kinetic mental state.
Speaking of The Italian Job, that's a decent comparison for The Bourne Identity. Although the latter is edgier and more complex, both have a European feel, with Bourne's obviously stemming from the entirely European setting. The old-fashioned yet physically beautiful locations are complemented by a rhythmic soundtrack that never soars but frequently hangs and lingers as the story proceeds.
The Bourne Identity is classified as an action flick, but the action is decidedly different than that in other movies of the same genre. Containing very few special effects or CGI, the action centers on motion and pursuit, endowing the film with a edgier, cat-and-mouse, more physical tone that is highlighted by a stellar car chase. Set in the middle of the movie, the sequence featuring a beat-up MG racing through the streets and alleys of Paris is the best cinematic chase since at least The Rock, if not long before that. The cat-and-mouse concept of the entire film is encapsulated in this quality set piece, which is more than just eye candy, serving also as a key turning point in the plot.
With surprisingly little face-to-face conflict present, scenes like this one must infuse the story with suspense, and that they do very well. While developmental parts are naturally but enjoyably slower, an underlying tension drives the entire story. Because it often spontaneously explodes to life early, that possibility persists throughout, moving it along like a people-mover, at a slow and steady pace that doesn't seem dangerous until something goes wrong.
Bottom Line: Rarely does an action-based movie feature such a compelling story and human characters. Five stars and then some for one of the most underrated and best action movies in recent years.
Review of "Piranhaconda" (2012)
"It's the offspring of an unholy union between a piranha and an anaconda."
"...You mean a piranhaconda?"
"...I can't believe you just said that!"
I can't believe I just watched that.
Actually, it's not that bad. In fact, Piranhaconda gives you exactly what you'd expect from a Sy Fy Channel Original Movie produced by Roger Corman. Nothing more, nothing less. Notice, however, that I said "expect." "Expect" doesn't necessarily mean "Want."
Michael Madsen plays a herpetologist who finds a mythical giant snake in Hawaii. When he steals one of the beast's eggs, he incurs the wrath of the killer Piranhaconda. Madsen gets captured by a bunch of money-grubbing kidnappers who also have set their sights on holding a low-budget movie crew for ransom. Of course, the huge monster messes up their plans.
I have to give at least some credit where it's due: compared to most Sy Fy Channel Original Movies, this movie is a step (a slither?) above the rest. Again, this isn't Shakespeare but for the most part it delivers the gory goods. The titular antagonist is certainly something to see. Sadly, but not shockingly, the same cannot be said of Madsen. He is clearly just picking up a paycheck here and he remains ostensibly bored throughout the picture.
"...You mean a piranhaconda?"
"...I can't believe you just said that!"
I can't believe I just watched that.
Actually, it's not that bad. In fact, Piranhaconda gives you exactly what you'd expect from a Sy Fy Channel Original Movie produced by Roger Corman. Nothing more, nothing less. Notice, however, that I said "expect." "Expect" doesn't necessarily mean "Want."
Michael Madsen plays a herpetologist who finds a mythical giant snake in Hawaii. When he steals one of the beast's eggs, he incurs the wrath of the killer Piranhaconda. Madsen gets captured by a bunch of money-grubbing kidnappers who also have set their sights on holding a low-budget movie crew for ransom. Of course, the huge monster messes up their plans.
I have to give at least some credit where it's due: compared to most Sy Fy Channel Original Movies, this movie is a step (a slither?) above the rest. Again, this isn't Shakespeare but for the most part it delivers the gory goods. The titular antagonist is certainly something to see. Sadly, but not shockingly, the same cannot be said of Madsen. He is clearly just picking up a paycheck here and he remains ostensibly bored throughout the picture.
Visually, it doesn't look too bad. With SyFy, you would expect hackneyed editing, scenery that doesn't give a sense of authenticity, dull lighting and awkward camera angles. In regard to those assets though, Piranhaconda is generally one of their better-looking movies. The editing and camera work is mostly focused and the scenery is striking. You'd also anticipate laughably awful special effects. On the other hand, the Piranhaconda looks alright, there are a few moments where it does look fake, but overall it delivers what the film promised(part-snake, part-fish, all killer), it does look menacing and the movements are less choppy than other SyFy creatures, in fact I was impressed at the amazing speed it moved at. My problem with the Piranhaconda wasn't to do with the design this time. It was to do with how it was developed, you don't find out much about its origin and how it came to be in the jungle.
My bottom line: if you're looking for high art you're obviously in the wrong place, but this movie does offer some good moments. Good moments, however, doesn't stop its steam from running out before the final commercial break.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Review of "Toy Story" (1995)
Y'know, I always suspected that my toys were coming to life when I wasn't looking!
In Andy's Room, his toys lead lives of noisy desperation come every birthday and Christmas - no one wants to be one-upped by a new addition to the toy box. Nominally led by Cowboy Woody, Mr. Potato Head, Rex the Dinosaur, Ham the piggy bank, Bo Peep, Slinky the dog and a smattering of other playthings go about their toy business of playing checkers, hanging with the home toys and "plastic corrosion awareness meetings," until Andy's birthday party, when they gather expectantly around a transistor radio, listening to the reports of their toy soldier troops "in the field" (downstairs watching Andy's gift-opening), hoping that no gift will be exciting enough to cause Andy to neglect *them.* There is. His name is Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.
Directed by Pixar mainstay John Lasseter, with the voice talents of Tom Hanks (as Woody), Don Rickles, John Ratzenberger (forever Cliff from *Cheers*), R. Lee Ermey, Annie Potts, Jim Varney and Tim Allen (as Buzz), Toy Story is that diamond in the rough that succeeds on all levels – in its animation, storyline, character development, its messages of friendship and self-realization and, most importantly, its entertainment value. The fact that this is an animated feature is incidental.
Up until this movie broke open the visual toy box, from the early 1980's until the release of this film the "Disney Movie" had become synonymous with maudlin messages, redneck fundamentalism, anachronistic family values, boneheaded parents, smart-mouthing youngsters, too-hip-to-be-smart teens and insufferable pets. Though Disney's tyrannical umbrella overarches this film's production studio, Pixar Animation, Toy Story somehow avoids all trace of the three-fingered white glove of The Mouse, which is doubly surprising considering this is Pixar's first feature length film, after years of experimentation.
Sure, there are "messages," but they are heartfelt, rather than maudlin (Woody tells Buzz during Buzz's greatest depression that it matters not what Buzz thinks of himself, what makes him important is what his owner, Andy, thinks of him); there are emotional segments, which are truly heartbreaking, rather than cheesy (when Buzz's escape attempt lands him with a broken arm, proving he is Not A Flying Toy, the lyric, "Clearly I will go sailing no more," launches a thousand hankies); and the portrayal of Andy's family was Pixar's triumphal achievement. Boldly contravening Disney's mainstay at the time of the 1950's nuclear family and Norman Rockwell fantasies, one of the many incarnations of a modern-day family is presented: a single mother with two children, who are neither geniuses nor monsters, just normal children; happy to visit Pizza Planet and disappointed when favorite toys are lost.
Buzz – who believes he is a real life space ranger on a mission to save the universe - become Andy's favorite toy over Woody. The funny thing is: though Buzz believes he is real, he still adheres to toy protocol of "playing inert" when humans are in the area. (Maybe it's instinct?) When he mentions saving a toy from Sid, the vicious boy next door, how does he propose to do it if he is to adhere to the inert protocol? Buzz's ingenuousness regarding his role as a toy infuriates Woody to the point of attempted toy-assassination. Through an eerily similar set of accidents, both he and Buzz become lost and must use teamwork, trust and ingenuity to beat their path back to Andy, which finds them ensconced in scorchingly funny vignettes (Buzz fastening himself in an over-sized seatbelt; both falling in with green, three-eyed aliens; Buzz hyperventilating as "Mrs. Nesbitt"). During a climactic rocket ride, the callback line, "This is not flying - this is falling with style," simply seals this movie's greatness.
At least I now have a plausible explanation as to why my toys always got lost: after going about their toy business, they would just go inert anywhere they happened to be, instead of paying attention to their master's infallible toy filing system….
In Andy's Room, his toys lead lives of noisy desperation come every birthday and Christmas - no one wants to be one-upped by a new addition to the toy box. Nominally led by Cowboy Woody, Mr. Potato Head, Rex the Dinosaur, Ham the piggy bank, Bo Peep, Slinky the dog and a smattering of other playthings go about their toy business of playing checkers, hanging with the home toys and "plastic corrosion awareness meetings," until Andy's birthday party, when they gather expectantly around a transistor radio, listening to the reports of their toy soldier troops "in the field" (downstairs watching Andy's gift-opening), hoping that no gift will be exciting enough to cause Andy to neglect *them.* There is. His name is Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.
Directed by Pixar mainstay John Lasseter, with the voice talents of Tom Hanks (as Woody), Don Rickles, John Ratzenberger (forever Cliff from *Cheers*), R. Lee Ermey, Annie Potts, Jim Varney and Tim Allen (as Buzz), Toy Story is that diamond in the rough that succeeds on all levels – in its animation, storyline, character development, its messages of friendship and self-realization and, most importantly, its entertainment value. The fact that this is an animated feature is incidental.
Up until this movie broke open the visual toy box, from the early 1980's until the release of this film the "Disney Movie" had become synonymous with maudlin messages, redneck fundamentalism, anachronistic family values, boneheaded parents, smart-mouthing youngsters, too-hip-to-be-smart teens and insufferable pets. Though Disney's tyrannical umbrella overarches this film's production studio, Pixar Animation, Toy Story somehow avoids all trace of the three-fingered white glove of The Mouse, which is doubly surprising considering this is Pixar's first feature length film, after years of experimentation.
Sure, there are "messages," but they are heartfelt, rather than maudlin (Woody tells Buzz during Buzz's greatest depression that it matters not what Buzz thinks of himself, what makes him important is what his owner, Andy, thinks of him); there are emotional segments, which are truly heartbreaking, rather than cheesy (when Buzz's escape attempt lands him with a broken arm, proving he is Not A Flying Toy, the lyric, "Clearly I will go sailing no more," launches a thousand hankies); and the portrayal of Andy's family was Pixar's triumphal achievement. Boldly contravening Disney's mainstay at the time of the 1950's nuclear family and Norman Rockwell fantasies, one of the many incarnations of a modern-day family is presented: a single mother with two children, who are neither geniuses nor monsters, just normal children; happy to visit Pizza Planet and disappointed when favorite toys are lost.
Buzz – who believes he is a real life space ranger on a mission to save the universe - become Andy's favorite toy over Woody. The funny thing is: though Buzz believes he is real, he still adheres to toy protocol of "playing inert" when humans are in the area. (Maybe it's instinct?) When he mentions saving a toy from Sid, the vicious boy next door, how does he propose to do it if he is to adhere to the inert protocol? Buzz's ingenuousness regarding his role as a toy infuriates Woody to the point of attempted toy-assassination. Through an eerily similar set of accidents, both he and Buzz become lost and must use teamwork, trust and ingenuity to beat their path back to Andy, which finds them ensconced in scorchingly funny vignettes (Buzz fastening himself in an over-sized seatbelt; both falling in with green, three-eyed aliens; Buzz hyperventilating as "Mrs. Nesbitt"). During a climactic rocket ride, the callback line, "This is not flying - this is falling with style," simply seals this movie's greatness.
At least I now have a plausible explanation as to why my toys always got lost: after going about their toy business, they would just go inert anywhere they happened to be, instead of paying attention to their master's infallible toy filing system….
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Review of "Finding Nemo" (2003)
(Though I plan on reviewing Pixar's works in chronological order, this will be my one exception, per a request from a long-time college friend)
The digital realm is easily forgotten when you first lock eyes on the visual wonder created for yet another charming tale from Disney/Pixar Animation. Finding Nemo is Pixar's fifth outing and after a moderately spotless track record they keep this one swimming in a wealth of color and three-dimensional form. Their visual language has proven to be a clear and successful method of storytelling. It captures the imagination and accommodates some fairly decent stories to boot. What setting could be more exciting than Australia's exotic eastern coastline?
However, it's a mix of Pixar's wonderful craft and a well-written story that keeps audiences enthralled, and this time writer/director Andrew Stanton serves up just that, on a silver platter. What remains is the winning formula of comedy and gravity within the screenplay. Stanton has been involved with all the other Pixar features in the past, and it shows. Even deep under the ocean, far removed from the human subtleties that are woven into usual animations, is a rich tapestry of lifelike environments and genuine characters that are easy to connect and relate to. And in the usual Pixar tradition you get a film that bridges the age boundary and becomes wholly enjoyed by all, young and old.
I enjoyed myself for the entire duration of Finding Nemo (that included the final credits). I recommend it to all, no matter what your cinematic preference may be. Besides the lavish visual elements that have made Pixar much admired, this has been a labor of love for Andrew Stanton that started way back in 1992, prior to Toy Story. It's a new development in the path the entire production house is heading. Thomas Newman's involvement in writing music for this project shows us exactly this new direction as his score gives the film a new emotional style. It's also a "new high water mark" for CGI in general. Pixar is now an established force in animation but politely recognizes others in the industry as well. For example, there is the address (amongst other things) Wallaby Way that will be instantly recognizable to Wallace and Gromit fans and a totally tubular Sea Turtle (Crush, voiced by Stanton himself) with a very close resemblance to four post-adolescent martial art amphibian friends of his. There are also plenty of fun references to Jaws, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Monty Python and nearly every previous (and upcoming) Pixar feature. You also have Pixar's own Joe Ranft, who made famous the character of Heimlich the caterpillar from A Bug's Life, making another special appearance as the voice of Jacques the cleaner shrimp. Younger children won't get these in-jokes but for the adults it's a warm welcome. When it comes down to it Finding Nemo is aimed at just about anyone, as long as they enjoy a well-told and inventive story. From the vibrantly lush to the murky dark, this is an absolute lure for the eyes and a catch-of-the-day for the funnybone.
The digital realm is easily forgotten when you first lock eyes on the visual wonder created for yet another charming tale from Disney/Pixar Animation. Finding Nemo is Pixar's fifth outing and after a moderately spotless track record they keep this one swimming in a wealth of color and three-dimensional form. Their visual language has proven to be a clear and successful method of storytelling. It captures the imagination and accommodates some fairly decent stories to boot. What setting could be more exciting than Australia's exotic eastern coastline?
However, it's a mix of Pixar's wonderful craft and a well-written story that keeps audiences enthralled, and this time writer/director Andrew Stanton serves up just that, on a silver platter. What remains is the winning formula of comedy and gravity within the screenplay. Stanton has been involved with all the other Pixar features in the past, and it shows. Even deep under the ocean, far removed from the human subtleties that are woven into usual animations, is a rich tapestry of lifelike environments and genuine characters that are easy to connect and relate to. And in the usual Pixar tradition you get a film that bridges the age boundary and becomes wholly enjoyed by all, young and old.
I enjoyed myself for the entire duration of Finding Nemo (that included the final credits). I recommend it to all, no matter what your cinematic preference may be. Besides the lavish visual elements that have made Pixar much admired, this has been a labor of love for Andrew Stanton that started way back in 1992, prior to Toy Story. It's a new development in the path the entire production house is heading. Thomas Newman's involvement in writing music for this project shows us exactly this new direction as his score gives the film a new emotional style. It's also a "new high water mark" for CGI in general. Pixar is now an established force in animation but politely recognizes others in the industry as well. For example, there is the address (amongst other things) Wallaby Way that will be instantly recognizable to Wallace and Gromit fans and a totally tubular Sea Turtle (Crush, voiced by Stanton himself) with a very close resemblance to four post-adolescent martial art amphibian friends of his. There are also plenty of fun references to Jaws, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Monty Python and nearly every previous (and upcoming) Pixar feature. You also have Pixar's own Joe Ranft, who made famous the character of Heimlich the caterpillar from A Bug's Life, making another special appearance as the voice of Jacques the cleaner shrimp. Younger children won't get these in-jokes but for the adults it's a warm welcome. When it comes down to it Finding Nemo is aimed at just about anyone, as long as they enjoy a well-told and inventive story. From the vibrantly lush to the murky dark, this is an absolute lure for the eyes and a catch-of-the-day for the funnybone.
Review of "Beauty and the Beast" (1991)
Next up in my Disney sub-series is another of the Mouse's most well-known animated films, Beauty and the Beast.
Indeed, it's a tale as old as time, with a complex message that is as ageless as it is universal; but beneath all the layers it can be summed up very simply: love one another, and refrain from judging others who `seem' to be `different.' And leave it to Disney to present it in such a way that it can be embraced and understood by young and old alike as they have here, in one of their best animated features ever, directed by Gary Trousdale. When a young Prince fails the test of an enchantress disguised as an old hag, she transforms him into a hideous beast, as he is destined to remain until he opens his heart and learns how to love and be loved in return. And so that he'll know where he stands as time goes by, she gives him an enchanted rose, which will bloom until his twenty-first birthday, and he has only until the last petal falls from the flower to effect the change within himself that will be his salvation.
The beast, however, seems doomed, as he shuts himself away, alone in his castle, taking up a reclusive existence far from everyone and everything. Until, one day, a beautiful young woman named Belle shows up at his doorstep. Belle is searching for her inventor father, Maurice, who disappeared while taking one of his latest inventions to the fair; and his trail leads Belle to the castle of the Beast, where she discovers he is being held prisoner, having run afoul of the Beast by trespassing while lost during the night of his journey. Repulsed by the appearance of the Beast, Belle nevertheless strikes a bargain with him: If he will release her father, she will stay in his place. The Beast agrees, with the stipulation that she must remain with him forever. And as the Beast casts Belle's father from the castle and sends him on his way, Belle's fate seems sealed. The only hope now for either Belle or the Beast lies in the remote possibility that true love may somehow prevail before the last petal of the enchanted rose falls.
With the help of a richly textured screenplay (by Linda Woolverton) that invests the characters with a depth of humanity that is often lacking even in `non' animated films, and an Oscar winning score by Alan Menken, director Trousdale provides some real insights into human nature in this retelling of the familiar story of how true love can change even the darkest and coldest of hearts. There's magic in this film, which holds an enchantment of it's own, and the message is presented ever so subtly and with a sensitivity that draws you in gradually until you are so caught up in the story that you become immersed and totally involved without being consciously aware of it. It's a film that enfolds you and takes you where it will, and you go willingly. A beautifully rendered and realized film that successfully transcends it's genre, it is the first animated feature ever to be recognized and rewarded with an Oscar nomination for Best Movie (quite a feat in itself, as it received the nod over such films as The Fisher King, Fried Green Tomatoes, Thelma and Louise and John Singleton's Boyz N the Hood that year).
The talented cast supplying the voices of the characters includes Paige O'Hara (Belle), Robby Benson (The Beast), Richard White (Gaston), Jerry Orbach (Lumiere), David Ogden Stiers (Cogsworth), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts), Bradley Pierce (Chip), Rex Everhart (Maurice), Jesse Corti (LeFou), Hal Smith (Phillipe), Jo Ann Worley (Wardrobe), Brian Cummings (Stove), Alvin Epstein (Bookseller) and Kimmy Robertson (Featherduster). There's a scene in this film that is so entrancing and so emotionally involving that it stands up against the best from any drama ever made: As Angela Lansbury (as Mrs. Potts) sings the Oscar winning title song, Belle begins to perceive the true nature of the man within the Beast; and it's no longer the cold-hearted Prince upon whom the enchantress cast her spell, because he has changed. As they come together and the Beast takes Belle in his arms, sweeping her in dance across the elegant ballroom floor, it becomes one of those rare cinematic `moments' that are entirely transporting, and it does, indeed, take you away. It's a memorable scene that exemplifies the quality and craftsmanship of this film, as does the scene in which the Beast is at last transformed; that such emotion can be captured and expressed in an animated film is an exemplary accomplishment, and it's all a part of why Beauty and the Beast is one of Disney's all-time greatest films.
One final note: Stay for the credits to hear Alan Menken and Howard Ashman's title song once again, this time performed by Celine Dion and Peabo Bryson. Hypnotically beautiful, this version has a magic all it's own and makes the perfect ending to an enchanting experience. It's all a part of the magic of the movies.
Indeed, it's a tale as old as time, with a complex message that is as ageless as it is universal; but beneath all the layers it can be summed up very simply: love one another, and refrain from judging others who `seem' to be `different.' And leave it to Disney to present it in such a way that it can be embraced and understood by young and old alike as they have here, in one of their best animated features ever, directed by Gary Trousdale. When a young Prince fails the test of an enchantress disguised as an old hag, she transforms him into a hideous beast, as he is destined to remain until he opens his heart and learns how to love and be loved in return. And so that he'll know where he stands as time goes by, she gives him an enchanted rose, which will bloom until his twenty-first birthday, and he has only until the last petal falls from the flower to effect the change within himself that will be his salvation.
The beast, however, seems doomed, as he shuts himself away, alone in his castle, taking up a reclusive existence far from everyone and everything. Until, one day, a beautiful young woman named Belle shows up at his doorstep. Belle is searching for her inventor father, Maurice, who disappeared while taking one of his latest inventions to the fair; and his trail leads Belle to the castle of the Beast, where she discovers he is being held prisoner, having run afoul of the Beast by trespassing while lost during the night of his journey. Repulsed by the appearance of the Beast, Belle nevertheless strikes a bargain with him: If he will release her father, she will stay in his place. The Beast agrees, with the stipulation that she must remain with him forever. And as the Beast casts Belle's father from the castle and sends him on his way, Belle's fate seems sealed. The only hope now for either Belle or the Beast lies in the remote possibility that true love may somehow prevail before the last petal of the enchanted rose falls.
With the help of a richly textured screenplay (by Linda Woolverton) that invests the characters with a depth of humanity that is often lacking even in `non' animated films, and an Oscar winning score by Alan Menken, director Trousdale provides some real insights into human nature in this retelling of the familiar story of how true love can change even the darkest and coldest of hearts. There's magic in this film, which holds an enchantment of it's own, and the message is presented ever so subtly and with a sensitivity that draws you in gradually until you are so caught up in the story that you become immersed and totally involved without being consciously aware of it. It's a film that enfolds you and takes you where it will, and you go willingly. A beautifully rendered and realized film that successfully transcends it's genre, it is the first animated feature ever to be recognized and rewarded with an Oscar nomination for Best Movie (quite a feat in itself, as it received the nod over such films as The Fisher King, Fried Green Tomatoes, Thelma and Louise and John Singleton's Boyz N the Hood that year).
The talented cast supplying the voices of the characters includes Paige O'Hara (Belle), Robby Benson (The Beast), Richard White (Gaston), Jerry Orbach (Lumiere), David Ogden Stiers (Cogsworth), Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts), Bradley Pierce (Chip), Rex Everhart (Maurice), Jesse Corti (LeFou), Hal Smith (Phillipe), Jo Ann Worley (Wardrobe), Brian Cummings (Stove), Alvin Epstein (Bookseller) and Kimmy Robertson (Featherduster). There's a scene in this film that is so entrancing and so emotionally involving that it stands up against the best from any drama ever made: As Angela Lansbury (as Mrs. Potts) sings the Oscar winning title song, Belle begins to perceive the true nature of the man within the Beast; and it's no longer the cold-hearted Prince upon whom the enchantress cast her spell, because he has changed. As they come together and the Beast takes Belle in his arms, sweeping her in dance across the elegant ballroom floor, it becomes one of those rare cinematic `moments' that are entirely transporting, and it does, indeed, take you away. It's a memorable scene that exemplifies the quality and craftsmanship of this film, as does the scene in which the Beast is at last transformed; that such emotion can be captured and expressed in an animated film is an exemplary accomplishment, and it's all a part of why Beauty and the Beast is one of Disney's all-time greatest films.
One final note: Stay for the credits to hear Alan Menken and Howard Ashman's title song once again, this time performed by Celine Dion and Peabo Bryson. Hypnotically beautiful, this version has a magic all it's own and makes the perfect ending to an enchanting experience. It's all a part of the magic of the movies.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Review of "The Great Mouse Detective" (1986)
By no means does The Great Mouse Detective (also known to many as The Adventures of the Great Mouse Detective) rank among the greatest Disney films. Its animation is mostly "Saturday Morning" level and its plot is as simplistic as a Sherlock Holmes knockoff story can get, complete with plot-driven, expository script and pretty typical archetypes throughout. Yet, it has something that has been missing in Disney movies for years: likability. It's lightweight, well crafted fun, like all the best Saturday morning cartoons, with inventive set pieces and terrific voice acting that helps make up for the fact that the losses incurred on The Black Cauldron show quite clearly. Unfortunately, it was shoveled under the hype over Don Bluth's An American Tail, a film that I have a bit of a soft spot for, but which I'm not sure was that much better despite more involved animation. Of course it's no masterpiece, but it does deserve some appreciation for its virtues.
The plot's rather simple, and a bit too dialogue driven. Basically, you can figure out what happens before you even see it. What makes it work are the personalities. True, Olivia's a bit cloying, but Basil himself is as manic and fun to watch as any good Holmes knockoff, due in no small part to Barrie Ingham's performance. However, the show stealer, like with many Disney films, is the villain, Professor Ratigan as brilliantly voiced by the great Vincent Price, who stated just before he passed away that out of everything he'd ever accomplished, voicing Ratigan was his favorite role. What I love about his character is that he comes off a narcissistic buffoon most of the time, but when pushed he shows himself to be a ruthless maniac able to wring whatever he wants from people by sheer force. In many ways, he's the villain that Captain Hook should have been. He even gets one of the only song numbers in this movie, one of the finest villain numbers in its jaunty bombast and how it shifts to a dead stop when a henchman double crosses him then shifts back after a rather grim moment in the film.
Unfortunately, one wishes the animation was better than Toon Disney on a production level. There's lots of conservative pose-to-pose stuff and very little in the ways of spontaneous character stuff. The angles are all very flat and straightforward. It especially shows in the dog character Toby, who is much larger than the others but has too lightweight a feel to him. It's still a better looking film than The Black Cauldron, however less lavish it may be, and it has a few highlights. Ratigan, again, is superbly animated by Glen Keane, who gives him much more nuance and presence than the other characters. There's also a steep improvement toward the end, where Disney really ratchets up on some terrific set-piece direction. The CGI may show its age, but it's incorporated quite well. One also suspects that Disney first started to look at Hayao Miyazaki's work around this time, since there are more than a few similarities to the climax of Castle of Cagliostro.
All in all, these elements, along with a great Henry Mancini score, add up to another overlooked gem of a Disney movie, if not an essential work. It's light nature makes it understandable that some people tend not to care for it, but I enjoy it like I do any decent childhood cartoon. For me, it's the best Disney picture between the end of the Golden Age in the 60s and the Renaissance at the end of the 80s, despite not being especially ambitious or innovative. It's just good fun, and what more can one ask for?
As I did with Aladdin, here are some trivia tid-bits:
--The clock tower scene is the first major use of computer animation (the clock's gears) in a feature-length animated film. The same scene was also the first time traditionally animated characters were put inside a computer-generated background.
--Look quickly: When Basil is looking for a map inside his apartment, he unrolls one and glances at it VERY briefly. It looks like a cliched treasure map, but one of the locations reads: "Downtown Burbank."
The plot's rather simple, and a bit too dialogue driven. Basically, you can figure out what happens before you even see it. What makes it work are the personalities. True, Olivia's a bit cloying, but Basil himself is as manic and fun to watch as any good Holmes knockoff, due in no small part to Barrie Ingham's performance. However, the show stealer, like with many Disney films, is the villain, Professor Ratigan as brilliantly voiced by the great Vincent Price, who stated just before he passed away that out of everything he'd ever accomplished, voicing Ratigan was his favorite role. What I love about his character is that he comes off a narcissistic buffoon most of the time, but when pushed he shows himself to be a ruthless maniac able to wring whatever he wants from people by sheer force. In many ways, he's the villain that Captain Hook should have been. He even gets one of the only song numbers in this movie, one of the finest villain numbers in its jaunty bombast and how it shifts to a dead stop when a henchman double crosses him then shifts back after a rather grim moment in the film.
Unfortunately, one wishes the animation was better than Toon Disney on a production level. There's lots of conservative pose-to-pose stuff and very little in the ways of spontaneous character stuff. The angles are all very flat and straightforward. It especially shows in the dog character Toby, who is much larger than the others but has too lightweight a feel to him. It's still a better looking film than The Black Cauldron, however less lavish it may be, and it has a few highlights. Ratigan, again, is superbly animated by Glen Keane, who gives him much more nuance and presence than the other characters. There's also a steep improvement toward the end, where Disney really ratchets up on some terrific set-piece direction. The CGI may show its age, but it's incorporated quite well. One also suspects that Disney first started to look at Hayao Miyazaki's work around this time, since there are more than a few similarities to the climax of Castle of Cagliostro.
All in all, these elements, along with a great Henry Mancini score, add up to another overlooked gem of a Disney movie, if not an essential work. It's light nature makes it understandable that some people tend not to care for it, but I enjoy it like I do any decent childhood cartoon. For me, it's the best Disney picture between the end of the Golden Age in the 60s and the Renaissance at the end of the 80s, despite not being especially ambitious or innovative. It's just good fun, and what more can one ask for?
As I did with Aladdin, here are some trivia tid-bits:
--The clock tower scene is the first major use of computer animation (the clock's gears) in a feature-length animated film. The same scene was also the first time traditionally animated characters were put inside a computer-generated background.
--Look quickly: When Basil is looking for a map inside his apartment, he unrolls one and glances at it VERY briefly. It looks like a cliched treasure map, but one of the locations reads: "Downtown Burbank."
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Review of "Aladdin" (1992)
This time around, I figured I would make my wife and two daughters happy, and begin a sub-section of these reviews where I will focus on animation, mainly from the fantastic magicians of Disney/Pixar. The story of Aladdin, from a collection of stories dating back more than a millennium, has been filmed dozens of times in dozens of variations. However, none was ever filmed as creatively, humorously and family friendly as Disney Studios did in 1992. The success of the movie owes much to the talents of Robin Williams, whose manic impersonations and characterizations propel this movie along at a frantic pace. Disney also kept the story of Aladdin and Princess Jasmine simple, helping the appeal of the movie. This story is relatively simple, cutting out much of the detail from the original story. Aladdin (voiced by Scott Weinger), is a teenager trying to find enough to eat in Baghdad. Though Aladdin steals food and is a bit of a rogue, he also has a sense of fairness, honor and innocence, a "diamond in the rough" that evil Grand Vizier Jafar (voiced by Jonathan Freeman) needs to enter the Cave of Wonders to steal the magic lamp. Aladdin enters the cave and finds the lamp, but uses the lamp to escape and become Prince Ali in an attempt to win the heart and hand of Princess Jasmine (voiced by Linda Larkin). As we learn early in the movie, Princess Jasmine wants nothing to do with phonies and princes; she is looking for someone to whom she can give her heart, someone who will understand and love her. Prince Ali is not that person. Jafar wants the power of being the Sultan of Baghdad. His plan is simple, get the lamp, gain absolute power, marry Jasmine, and take over the world; not necessarily in that order. I would be remiss if I failed to mention Jafar's trusty adviser Iago the Parrot, voiced by the always obnoxious and, certainly in the case of this movie, funny Gilbert Gottfried. Perhaps if Jafar had not had a parrot as an adviser, things might have turned out different for him.
The animation in this edition of the movie is marvelous. The colors are bright and images are quite clear. Another wonderful feature of this movie is the music. The standout song is "A Whole New World," but I also liked "Prince Ali" and "One Jump Ahead." Alan Menken's score and Tim Rice's music garnered an Oscar for Menken and an Oscar for Menken and Rice. In fact, this movie won 22 significant awards and was nominated for another 15. Aladdin is a good guy trying to survive in a tough world. Princess Jasmine is naïve and innocent. Aladdin's love for Jasmine is pure and teenage and children and teenagers everywhere will identify with Aladdin's angst. The song and dance routines of Robin Williams' Genie keep the overall tone of this movie light, which is necessary to help balance the evil of Grand Vizier Jafar (voiced by Jonathan Freeman). I recommend this movie for all members of the family except for the very youngest members, who may be frightened by the images of Jafar and the Genie is a couple of the scenes. Most children ages 4 and above should be able to watch this movie with little difficulty.
I'll leave you with some little-known trivia:
--This film became the first animated movie to gross more than (US) $200 million.
--Throughout the film, whenever Aladdin tells a lie, the plume on his turban falls and covers his face.
--This is (as of this post) the only traditionally animated feature to be nominated for the MTV Movie Award for Best Picture.
The animation in this edition of the movie is marvelous. The colors are bright and images are quite clear. Another wonderful feature of this movie is the music. The standout song is "A Whole New World," but I also liked "Prince Ali" and "One Jump Ahead." Alan Menken's score and Tim Rice's music garnered an Oscar for Menken and an Oscar for Menken and Rice. In fact, this movie won 22 significant awards and was nominated for another 15. Aladdin is a good guy trying to survive in a tough world. Princess Jasmine is naïve and innocent. Aladdin's love for Jasmine is pure and teenage and children and teenagers everywhere will identify with Aladdin's angst. The song and dance routines of Robin Williams' Genie keep the overall tone of this movie light, which is necessary to help balance the evil of Grand Vizier Jafar (voiced by Jonathan Freeman). I recommend this movie for all members of the family except for the very youngest members, who may be frightened by the images of Jafar and the Genie is a couple of the scenes. Most children ages 4 and above should be able to watch this movie with little difficulty.
I'll leave you with some little-known trivia:
--This film became the first animated movie to gross more than (US) $200 million.
--Throughout the film, whenever Aladdin tells a lie, the plume on his turban falls and covers his face.
--This is (as of this post) the only traditionally animated feature to be nominated for the MTV Movie Award for Best Picture.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Review of "The Amazing Spider Man" (2012)
Ten years might seem too soon to reboot a franchise, but after the bloated and lackluster third film from 2007, going back to basics isn't that bad an idea after all. That's exactly what The Amazing Spider Man does, booting out previous franchise stalwarts Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and James Franco for up-and-coming director Marc Webb (with only the indie feature 500 Days of Summer under his belt) and similarly on-the-up stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. It's a bold move all right, but in this instance one that pays off handsomely in the form of an enormously entertaining blockbuster piece of entertainment that I dare say surpasses the original.
To be sure, this isn't quite 'the untold story' that the pre-publicity machine sold it as. Rather, screenwriters James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (with story credit to Vanderbilt) re-assemble the key elements of Peter Parker's origin story for a fresh new take on the familiar. So once again, Peter is the nerdy and socially awkward teenager who lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, who one day gets bitten by a genetically modified spider and develops superhuman powers, who uses his powers for play until his Uncle Ben gets killed, and then is thrust into a quest for justice to hunt down the killer that ultimately leads him to recognize the responsibility that comes with possessing such powers.
Like I said, this is no mere rehash, and both Webb (am I the only one who finds it fitting that his last name is Webb?) and his team of writers find opportunities at every turn to expand and adjust the little details that make a difference. Parker's father, for instance, plays a much more central role to the narrative, and the crucial wrestling episode between Parker and opponent Bonesaw McGraw in Sam Raimi's original is reduced with a wink to a brief moment that inspires his Spidey mask. More significantly, Webb tones down the comic-book feel of Raimi's original and goes the way of recent superhero movies by injecting a stronger dose of drama into the material.
Though Parker's abandonment issues have always featured in the Spider Man films, Webb's spin on it is by far the most emotionally poignant, drawing an intimate link with Parker's identity crisis that forms the backbone of the story. Indeed, that's also how the film's villain, Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), has been sketched. Both hero and adversary are characters isolated in their own way- two sides of the same coin if you may- not so different from the dynamic between Batman and the Joker in Nolan's The Dark Knight.
Nonetheless, fans can rest easy that Webb doesn't take his movie down a similarly dark and gloomy path- instead, there is much cheer and spark in the romance between Parker and classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who proves to be a much more interesting character than Mary-Jane Watson ever was in three films. That's undoubtedly a result of the chemistry between reel-turned-real life sweethearts Garfield and Stone, but a key difference here is that Stacy is no longer just the sweet girl-next-door but a smart and sassy individual perfectly capable of being Parker's intellectual equal. Their romance has the zing of Webb's earlier Summer, and more than justifies why the commercials director was chosen over so many others to take the helm of this movie.
Webb also has much fun with Parker's discovery of his newfound superhuman capabilities before the film takes a more decidedly serious tone- and a subway scene where the lanky teenager easily overpowers five other burly men in the same carriage (while ripping the clothes off another lady passenger) is neatly choreographed and perfectly staged. Ditto another where he hijacks a car-jacking thief in action (briefly seen in the trailers), which also marks the start of a tongue-in-cheek move he makes whenever some villain refuses to shut up or confess.
In between the intricate webs of romance, comedy and drama, Webb weaves in another layer of action that perfectly complements the earlier elements. The first major setpiece on the Williamsburg Bridge sets the tone for the rest to follow- eschewing all-out spectacle for more emotionally-driven thrills- culminating in a harrowing rescue of a young boy from a burning car hanging off the side of the bridge that proves to be unexpectedly moving. Likewise the climactic sequence set atop a New York skyscraper (similarity to 'The Avengers' aside) has more emotional beats than you would expect- in particular relating to Spiderman's status as a masked vigilante- and ends on a surprisingly sombre note that brings the human dimensions of the tale to a fully satisfying finish.
A huge reason why Webb's drama-centric approach works is the excellent casting. There's no other way to describe it than to say that Garfield is brilliant as Parker/ Spider-Man. He nails the tongue-in-cheek one- liners, and navigates the character beats between tortured teenager and born-again superhero with admirable ease.I have said this before, but it bears mentioning again- his scenes with Stone sparkle with verve. Not unlike Raimi's original, his scenes with supporting leads Martin Sheen and Sally Field provide some of the most heartwarming moments in the movie. To compare Garfield's performance with that of Maguire's is inconsequential really, and it suffices to say that Garfield brings a different, but no less unique, personality to the iconic character.
Indeed, the same can be said of the film as a whole, reassembling the familiar elements of Spider-Man's origin story into a refreshing blend of action and emotion. Working off the template of Raimi's original and inspired by recent character-driven superhero movies, Webb delivers an emotionally thrilling and adrenaline-pumping blockbuster that counts amongst one of the best Marvel page-to-screen adaptations. And unlike post-conversion efforts, the decision to shoot in 3D ensures that the POV shots of Spiderman swinging down Fifth Avenue or battling the Lizard atop the Oscorp skyscraper are positively awe-inspiring, adding an additional dimension of excitement especially when viewed in IMAX. Prepare to be Amazed!
To be sure, this isn't quite 'the untold story' that the pre-publicity machine sold it as. Rather, screenwriters James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves (with story credit to Vanderbilt) re-assemble the key elements of Peter Parker's origin story for a fresh new take on the familiar. So once again, Peter is the nerdy and socially awkward teenager who lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, who one day gets bitten by a genetically modified spider and develops superhuman powers, who uses his powers for play until his Uncle Ben gets killed, and then is thrust into a quest for justice to hunt down the killer that ultimately leads him to recognize the responsibility that comes with possessing such powers.
Like I said, this is no mere rehash, and both Webb (am I the only one who finds it fitting that his last name is Webb?) and his team of writers find opportunities at every turn to expand and adjust the little details that make a difference. Parker's father, for instance, plays a much more central role to the narrative, and the crucial wrestling episode between Parker and opponent Bonesaw McGraw in Sam Raimi's original is reduced with a wink to a brief moment that inspires his Spidey mask. More significantly, Webb tones down the comic-book feel of Raimi's original and goes the way of recent superhero movies by injecting a stronger dose of drama into the material.
Though Parker's abandonment issues have always featured in the Spider Man films, Webb's spin on it is by far the most emotionally poignant, drawing an intimate link with Parker's identity crisis that forms the backbone of the story. Indeed, that's also how the film's villain, Dr Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), has been sketched. Both hero and adversary are characters isolated in their own way- two sides of the same coin if you may- not so different from the dynamic between Batman and the Joker in Nolan's The Dark Knight.
Nonetheless, fans can rest easy that Webb doesn't take his movie down a similarly dark and gloomy path- instead, there is much cheer and spark in the romance between Parker and classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who proves to be a much more interesting character than Mary-Jane Watson ever was in three films. That's undoubtedly a result of the chemistry between reel-turned-real life sweethearts Garfield and Stone, but a key difference here is that Stacy is no longer just the sweet girl-next-door but a smart and sassy individual perfectly capable of being Parker's intellectual equal. Their romance has the zing of Webb's earlier Summer, and more than justifies why the commercials director was chosen over so many others to take the helm of this movie.
Webb also has much fun with Parker's discovery of his newfound superhuman capabilities before the film takes a more decidedly serious tone- and a subway scene where the lanky teenager easily overpowers five other burly men in the same carriage (while ripping the clothes off another lady passenger) is neatly choreographed and perfectly staged. Ditto another where he hijacks a car-jacking thief in action (briefly seen in the trailers), which also marks the start of a tongue-in-cheek move he makes whenever some villain refuses to shut up or confess.
In between the intricate webs of romance, comedy and drama, Webb weaves in another layer of action that perfectly complements the earlier elements. The first major setpiece on the Williamsburg Bridge sets the tone for the rest to follow- eschewing all-out spectacle for more emotionally-driven thrills- culminating in a harrowing rescue of a young boy from a burning car hanging off the side of the bridge that proves to be unexpectedly moving. Likewise the climactic sequence set atop a New York skyscraper (similarity to 'The Avengers' aside) has more emotional beats than you would expect- in particular relating to Spiderman's status as a masked vigilante- and ends on a surprisingly sombre note that brings the human dimensions of the tale to a fully satisfying finish.
A huge reason why Webb's drama-centric approach works is the excellent casting. There's no other way to describe it than to say that Garfield is brilliant as Parker/ Spider-Man. He nails the tongue-in-cheek one- liners, and navigates the character beats between tortured teenager and born-again superhero with admirable ease.I have said this before, but it bears mentioning again- his scenes with Stone sparkle with verve. Not unlike Raimi's original, his scenes with supporting leads Martin Sheen and Sally Field provide some of the most heartwarming moments in the movie. To compare Garfield's performance with that of Maguire's is inconsequential really, and it suffices to say that Garfield brings a different, but no less unique, personality to the iconic character.
Indeed, the same can be said of the film as a whole, reassembling the familiar elements of Spider-Man's origin story into a refreshing blend of action and emotion. Working off the template of Raimi's original and inspired by recent character-driven superhero movies, Webb delivers an emotionally thrilling and adrenaline-pumping blockbuster that counts amongst one of the best Marvel page-to-screen adaptations. And unlike post-conversion efforts, the decision to shoot in 3D ensures that the POV shots of Spiderman swinging down Fifth Avenue or battling the Lizard atop the Oscorp skyscraper are positively awe-inspiring, adding an additional dimension of excitement especially when viewed in IMAX. Prepare to be Amazed!
Review of "Punch-Drunk Love" (2002)
Adam Sandler is known for his wacky, flaky, and sometimes over the top style of comedy. With films like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and Big Daddy under his belt, one would think that he would stick with what he's got. Sandler has shown us a new side of him with his performance in Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch Drunk Love.
Sandler plays Barry Egan, an ambitious man who owns and operates his own business. He sells his own plungers. One day after finishing a phone call with a food company, he walks outside to find a tiny piano someone dropped on the side of the road. He runs after it and puts it in his office. Then shortly after he meets Lena Leonard (Emily Watson) who needs help with her car. Being the nice guy he is, he complies.
Barry Egan is a great guy. He is nice and is trying his best to do well. With seven sisters, he faces the brunt of their vicious wrath that they unintentionally place upon him. With embarrassing stories of growing up and how they teased him, Barry has a little built up anger that he uses here and there, like his sister's sliding glass door. Barry means well, but man can he do damage.
When lonely one night, Barry calls a sex line for just someone to talk to. What he ends up getting himself into is a huge scandal with the operator of the sex line due to the fact that he gave his credit card number to them and everything they need to know to get money from him. On top of this, Barry has found a way to cheat the food company he talks to in the beginning. The deal is getting free frequent-flyer miles due to a deal the company has on all of their items...including individual pudding cups. Barry pounces on the opportunity by buying as many 25 cent cups as he can so he can fly anywhere for free.
With an interesting plot and a great performance by both Sandler and Watson, this film is bound to make an impact. Sandler's more dramatic side shows, giving us a glimpse at the real actor behind all of the goofy nonsense we have come to love over the years. It was really refreshing to see a comedian do a really good job acting in a serious role. It reminded me of Jim Carrey in The Truman Show. Serious, yet still able to crack a joke, much like Sandler in this film.
Anderson is no newcomer when it comes to movies. He has written and directed a couple of gems. Boogie Nights and Magnolia are two he both wrote and directed and they each came out great. This movie is no different. It's unique style with interesting choices for music give the picture an edge.
If Sandler keeps landing roles like this, he could potentially put himself in position for an Oscar nomination, much like Bill Murray did with Lost in Translation. That's not to say he shouldn't make his regular comedies, but a nice blend would be great. Punch Drunk Love is a knockout, both emotionally and intellectually. Do yourself a huge favor and check it out today!
Sandler plays Barry Egan, an ambitious man who owns and operates his own business. He sells his own plungers. One day after finishing a phone call with a food company, he walks outside to find a tiny piano someone dropped on the side of the road. He runs after it and puts it in his office. Then shortly after he meets Lena Leonard (Emily Watson) who needs help with her car. Being the nice guy he is, he complies.
Barry Egan is a great guy. He is nice and is trying his best to do well. With seven sisters, he faces the brunt of their vicious wrath that they unintentionally place upon him. With embarrassing stories of growing up and how they teased him, Barry has a little built up anger that he uses here and there, like his sister's sliding glass door. Barry means well, but man can he do damage.
When lonely one night, Barry calls a sex line for just someone to talk to. What he ends up getting himself into is a huge scandal with the operator of the sex line due to the fact that he gave his credit card number to them and everything they need to know to get money from him. On top of this, Barry has found a way to cheat the food company he talks to in the beginning. The deal is getting free frequent-flyer miles due to a deal the company has on all of their items...including individual pudding cups. Barry pounces on the opportunity by buying as many 25 cent cups as he can so he can fly anywhere for free.
With an interesting plot and a great performance by both Sandler and Watson, this film is bound to make an impact. Sandler's more dramatic side shows, giving us a glimpse at the real actor behind all of the goofy nonsense we have come to love over the years. It was really refreshing to see a comedian do a really good job acting in a serious role. It reminded me of Jim Carrey in The Truman Show. Serious, yet still able to crack a joke, much like Sandler in this film.
Anderson is no newcomer when it comes to movies. He has written and directed a couple of gems. Boogie Nights and Magnolia are two he both wrote and directed and they each came out great. This movie is no different. It's unique style with interesting choices for music give the picture an edge.
If Sandler keeps landing roles like this, he could potentially put himself in position for an Oscar nomination, much like Bill Murray did with Lost in Translation. That's not to say he shouldn't make his regular comedies, but a nice blend would be great. Punch Drunk Love is a knockout, both emotionally and intellectually. Do yourself a huge favor and check it out today!
Review of "The Mummy's Ghost" (1944)
This is a definitely better movie than the previous Unviversal movie entry The Mummy's Tomb from 2 years earlier (see my earlier review).
Both the story and characters are better developed this time. Although this doesn't mean that the actual story is really that special but at least they put some effort in it.
This entry has the High Priest Yousef Bey (John Carradine) being assigned the task of going to America to retrieve the mummies of Kharis and his queen Ananka. Hero Tom Hervey (Robert Lowery) is courting a beautiful Egyptian by the name of Amina Mansouri (Ramsay Ames). Meanwhile Yousef Bey sets about arranging to take the two mummies back to Egypt. To this end, he unleashes Kharis upon the community to murder anyone who stands in their way.
At the same time Amina starts to experience blackouts as she is being gradually taken over by the spirit of Ananka (the "ghost" of the title) to become the re-incarnation of Queen Ananka. This suddenly becomes a point of issue between Kharis and Yousef Bey until......
Becoming a "B" movie second feature series, the films did nonetheless benefit from Universal's expertise in making this kind of film. Although it features a "B" list cast and runs a scant 61 minutes, it is still an entertaining way to spend an hour.
Lon Chaney would continue in the role of the Mummy in "The Mummy's Curse" (1944) the final film in the series.
A perfectly watchable mummy-entry, and a great way to spend a rainy Saturday night.
Both the story and characters are better developed this time. Although this doesn't mean that the actual story is really that special but at least they put some effort in it.
This entry has the High Priest Yousef Bey (John Carradine) being assigned the task of going to America to retrieve the mummies of Kharis and his queen Ananka. Hero Tom Hervey (Robert Lowery) is courting a beautiful Egyptian by the name of Amina Mansouri (Ramsay Ames). Meanwhile Yousef Bey sets about arranging to take the two mummies back to Egypt. To this end, he unleashes Kharis upon the community to murder anyone who stands in their way.
At the same time Amina starts to experience blackouts as she is being gradually taken over by the spirit of Ananka (the "ghost" of the title) to become the re-incarnation of Queen Ananka. This suddenly becomes a point of issue between Kharis and Yousef Bey until......
Becoming a "B" movie second feature series, the films did nonetheless benefit from Universal's expertise in making this kind of film. Although it features a "B" list cast and runs a scant 61 minutes, it is still an entertaining way to spend an hour.
Lon Chaney would continue in the role of the Mummy in "The Mummy's Curse" (1944) the final film in the series.
A perfectly watchable mummy-entry, and a great way to spend a rainy Saturday night.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Review of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008)
As with many films it seems impossible to have measured, balanced opinion presented and then moved along from. Instead what we get is a lot of hype, a lot of people who think it is the worst film ever and yet other people who think it is one of the best films they have ever seen. What I find is that, if you listen to the reasons behind these opinions, both camps have points to make and the most likely reason for this is that both arguments hold a certain amount of water but not 100% - because Indy IV is neither the best or worst film ever. So what is it?
Well, disappointingly, "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not much better than The Mummy or National Treasure or several other films that would like to be as good and as fun as Raiders or Last Crusade but are simply acceptable products in the shadow of those better films. With these films that is almost understandable, but because this is not an Indy-clone but rather a part of the series one can understand why the strength of disappointment. Some people have a problem with the "alien" plot and have used it as a chance to revive the anger over the new Star Wars films and get at Lucas. For me it was a bit strange and modern but to be honest I didn't find it too different in concept from accepting immortality and religious mythology as the basis. Problem is not with the concept of the story but with the delivery. In this regard we get a rather plodding "action/explain/action/explain" structure that stutters rather than flows. It also asks the audience to ignore the fact that every single one of us knows what a head shaped like that means and it is silly to have the influence of aliens "revealed" to us as if it hadn't been clear from the very opening scene.
Storyline aside though, what irritated me was the lack of fun. The opening scene has it in the simple pleasures of a warehouse chase but then blows it away with a moment of silliness with an atomic bomb and a fridge. This pattern continues through the film but sadly rather than having a good bit followed by silliness, silliness tends to infect and diminish a lot of the action. This is a killer because the set-pieces are there in spirit but somehow too much of the delivery has been fudged. The motorcycle chase is fun but after that not a lot works. In the run-up to the film, everyone was talking up how this is an old-fashioned action with real action and not a load of CGI; I can only assume then that Spielberg did not see the final cut and that someone has slipped in some other scenes because I was surprised by how computerised a lot of it was - and also how damaging it is. Of course the "king of the monkeys" bit is absurd and can be highlighted for easy points but to be honest the entire chase through the jungle suffers as well, Here we have a hark back to that brilliant lorry chase in Raiders but it is a poor copy. The CGI makes it daft and robs it totally of realism - well, not "realism" but it makes it less engaging and urgent for the viewer because, as it never looks real, it never really feels real either - an impression not helped, incidentally, by the extent of stunts such as falling over waterfalls etc which are just too overblown to be exciting. The CGI use understandably gets greater as the film approaches the conclusion but, as impressive as it looks, you never once think it is "real" and I cannot help but feel that just because one "can" do something with computers, doesn't always mean one should.
I'm being negative about it but I do want to stress that the film is "OK" - just that "OK" will not be what the majority of viewers are hoping for. It does have its moments of fun but they are few and far between. Crucially what I was surprised by was the lack of true suspense. Often with famous music there are moments where it all comes together and sends thrills through the viewer - that never happened here. Not once. The cast try hard but there is an inescapable feeling of "reunion" to their performances that detract from their characters. Ford does look good for his age and does sort of carry that weary cynicism of the character but nostalgia and reunions rob him of that important trait. LaBeouf is OK but he suffers from being pushed on the audience as some sort of heir-apparent without seeing if he works first - that said he is pretty good considering the weight on him. Blanchett plays it all too straight and is a dull villain without the weight to carry it. Winstone mugs around unconvincingly while Hurt is tied to a "mad" character for the majority. Allen is a nice return in terms of character but her performance is far too "happy to be here/isn't this just like old days" and she never once feels like a real character within the film. Spielberg's direction is a disappointment as the film never "looks" great; mostly due to "big" moments mostly existing within a PC but I was also surprised by how few impressive shots and moments there were.
Indy IV is not a terrible film but nor is it a really good one. It is disappointing but looking at it coldly it is just another CGI-heavy summer blockbuster sequel that can't deliver what it promises; that it is Indiana Jones makes it all the more disappointing but, like most so-so blockbusters, it has just about enough about it to be "OK" but also be a disappointment at the same time.
Well, disappointingly, "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is not much better than The Mummy or National Treasure or several other films that would like to be as good and as fun as Raiders or Last Crusade but are simply acceptable products in the shadow of those better films. With these films that is almost understandable, but because this is not an Indy-clone but rather a part of the series one can understand why the strength of disappointment. Some people have a problem with the "alien" plot and have used it as a chance to revive the anger over the new Star Wars films and get at Lucas. For me it was a bit strange and modern but to be honest I didn't find it too different in concept from accepting immortality and religious mythology as the basis. Problem is not with the concept of the story but with the delivery. In this regard we get a rather plodding "action/explain/action/explain" structure that stutters rather than flows. It also asks the audience to ignore the fact that every single one of us knows what a head shaped like that means and it is silly to have the influence of aliens "revealed" to us as if it hadn't been clear from the very opening scene.
Storyline aside though, what irritated me was the lack of fun. The opening scene has it in the simple pleasures of a warehouse chase but then blows it away with a moment of silliness with an atomic bomb and a fridge. This pattern continues through the film but sadly rather than having a good bit followed by silliness, silliness tends to infect and diminish a lot of the action. This is a killer because the set-pieces are there in spirit but somehow too much of the delivery has been fudged. The motorcycle chase is fun but after that not a lot works. In the run-up to the film, everyone was talking up how this is an old-fashioned action with real action and not a load of CGI; I can only assume then that Spielberg did not see the final cut and that someone has slipped in some other scenes because I was surprised by how computerised a lot of it was - and also how damaging it is. Of course the "king of the monkeys" bit is absurd and can be highlighted for easy points but to be honest the entire chase through the jungle suffers as well, Here we have a hark back to that brilliant lorry chase in Raiders but it is a poor copy. The CGI makes it daft and robs it totally of realism - well, not "realism" but it makes it less engaging and urgent for the viewer because, as it never looks real, it never really feels real either - an impression not helped, incidentally, by the extent of stunts such as falling over waterfalls etc which are just too overblown to be exciting. The CGI use understandably gets greater as the film approaches the conclusion but, as impressive as it looks, you never once think it is "real" and I cannot help but feel that just because one "can" do something with computers, doesn't always mean one should.
I'm being negative about it but I do want to stress that the film is "OK" - just that "OK" will not be what the majority of viewers are hoping for. It does have its moments of fun but they are few and far between. Crucially what I was surprised by was the lack of true suspense. Often with famous music there are moments where it all comes together and sends thrills through the viewer - that never happened here. Not once. The cast try hard but there is an inescapable feeling of "reunion" to their performances that detract from their characters. Ford does look good for his age and does sort of carry that weary cynicism of the character but nostalgia and reunions rob him of that important trait. LaBeouf is OK but he suffers from being pushed on the audience as some sort of heir-apparent without seeing if he works first - that said he is pretty good considering the weight on him. Blanchett plays it all too straight and is a dull villain without the weight to carry it. Winstone mugs around unconvincingly while Hurt is tied to a "mad" character for the majority. Allen is a nice return in terms of character but her performance is far too "happy to be here/isn't this just like old days" and she never once feels like a real character within the film. Spielberg's direction is a disappointment as the film never "looks" great; mostly due to "big" moments mostly existing within a PC but I was also surprised by how few impressive shots and moments there were.
Indy IV is not a terrible film but nor is it a really good one. It is disappointing but looking at it coldly it is just another CGI-heavy summer blockbuster sequel that can't deliver what it promises; that it is Indiana Jones makes it all the more disappointing but, like most so-so blockbusters, it has just about enough about it to be "OK" but also be a disappointment at the same time.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Review of "Blade" (1998)
It seems to me that a lot of people don't know that Blade is actually a superhero movie on par with X-Men, Daredevil, Punisher and the likes. What all these heroes (and in the case of X-Men, hero group) have in common is that they were all conceived in the magical world of Marvel. Blade was originally a normal person (in a blue outfit) who chased vampires because of a personal grudge and eventually faced off with Dracula himself. He was, for lack of a better term, boring. So boring, in fact, that the character was shelved and never used in the Marvel cine-verse. Then the latter half of 1998 came along...
David S. Goyer performed a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather-clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well, who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman-like brooding. Snipes is pretty good as the titular character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the Day Walker. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for the length of one film (which can be attested by the two sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and a surprising sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady, making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German-born Udo Kier should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best graphic novel villans, ranking right up there with Heath Ledger's Joker.
The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since...well, who am I kidding? Up until these films, it hasn't been done) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a "comic book" feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it! A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. This does include the effects which are pretty good for their time. Indeed, it was this film that introduced the world to the concept of "Bullet Time," which The Matrix then capitalized on a year later. I found the vampire "dustings" to be a very nice touch. Rather than adding a lot of blood when a vampire expires, Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously combust which looks fantastic. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film, which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.
As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the two Blade sequels. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense, dark atmosphere which works great--keeping in step both with the brooding of Blade, as well as the heart of the story.
All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should have garnered much more recognition than it gained in its original theatrical run. However, a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie. Suffice to say, many of them are located near the end of the film) do weaken the pace of the film near its ending. To all my fellow comic-book followers, this remains a bloody good time.
David S. Goyer performed a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather-clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well, who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman-like brooding. Snipes is pretty good as the titular character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the Day Walker. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for the length of one film (which can be attested by the two sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and a surprising sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady, making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German-born Udo Kier should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best graphic novel villans, ranking right up there with Heath Ledger's Joker.
The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since...well, who am I kidding? Up until these films, it hasn't been done) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a "comic book" feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it! A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. This does include the effects which are pretty good for their time. Indeed, it was this film that introduced the world to the concept of "Bullet Time," which The Matrix then capitalized on a year later. I found the vampire "dustings" to be a very nice touch. Rather than adding a lot of blood when a vampire expires, Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously combust which looks fantastic. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film, which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.
As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the two Blade sequels. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense, dark atmosphere which works great--keeping in step both with the brooding of Blade, as well as the heart of the story.
All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should have garnered much more recognition than it gained in its original theatrical run. However, a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie. Suffice to say, many of them are located near the end of the film) do weaken the pace of the film near its ending. To all my fellow comic-book followers, this remains a bloody good time.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Review of "The Avengers" (2012)
This, friends, is the comic book movie that all other comic book movies wish they could be. It's the pinnacle, the ultimate, the surely unsurpassable achievement in its particular oeuvre, a grand adventure full of humor, action, tension, fan service and an undeniable pathos. For anyone fearing that all the hype – years and years worth of hype – might cheapen or otherwise overshadow the final outcome, you may at last be at ease. Because the JOSS WHEDON! AVENGERS MOVIE! is exactly as good as we all hoped it could be.
Maybe even better.
The Avengers, of course, are a superhero team made up of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Other heroes have come and gone amongst this happy few, in comic form, but here all you need to know is that this film serves as kind of a sequel to previous Marvel movies IRON MAN(both 1 and 2), THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN America, bringing the billionaire Tony Stark, the scientist Bruce Banner, the demigod Thor and the recently defrosted World War II veteran Steve Rogers together to fight against an invading alien threat, alongside spies Clint Barton (Jeremy Denner) and Natasha Romanov (Scarlett Johansson) and under the auspices of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Man, it's awesome. AWE. SOME.
Oh, it's by no means a perfect film. Whedon is perhaps just a shade too in love with S.H.I.E.L.D technology, and the weight of portent which is given to some truly innocuous lines Рespecially the final line Рfeels a little off-kilter. Flashing up a computer image of Natalie Portman's Jane (Thor's love interest from his movie) felt a little like an apology, and the shadowy government hacks who attempt to control Nick Fury are by-the-numbers backroom power players of the Cigarette Smoking Man-school, ruthless and annoyingly clich̩.
Everything else, though? Simply, outstandingly, without a shadow of a doubt incredible.
Just for fun, let's talk acting. All our returning superheroes reprise their roles with ease, Downey Jr. once again a delight as the arrogant billionaire Stark and Evans stoic and earnest as the displaced Cap. The award for Most Improved has to go to Chris Hemsworth, whose Thor is given a chance to rock some deadpan wit here, and rock it he surprisingly does. Johansson, of course, is gorgeous and ass-kicking as ever in her Black Widow leather, but is happily also given new levels of intriguing backstory at which to hint and play out, and her friend Hawkeye is given somewhat more to do here than he was allowed in Thor, Jeremy Renner's relaxed performance once again worthy of my beloved marksman's bow and arrow. Clark Gregg's mild-mannered Agent Coulson is adorable in his hero worship; meanwhile our main antagonist in this film is Loki, Thor's resentful trickster brother once again played with consummate creepy cool by Tom Hiddleston.
Oh, and hello again Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts! Aren't you funny and great?
Of the newcomers, I will admit to having had some reservations about Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner, as I had been a true devotee of Edward Norton's turn in the role, but I am big enough to admit when I am wrong: he was terrific here as the mousey, mild-mannered science guy with a chip on his shoulder, and the uses to which his Hulk was put throughout the course of this movie have almost entirely changed my mind about his place in the Marvel Universe. It was that good. Elsewhere, How I Met Your Mother's Cobie Smulders, as an agent of S. H. I. E. L. D., did a lot with a little – enough to hope we see more of her lithe and loyal lieutenant character in AVENGERS 2.
Indeed, after a rollicking, outrageous, hilarious outing like this one, who wouldn't already be eagerly awaiting a sequel? It is, unequivocally, the best comic book movie I have ever seen (and I've seen, well, all of them). More than that, it is my favorite movie so far this year – whew! I was so hoping BATTLESHIP wouldn't continue to hold that title for too much longer – and one I cannot wait to see again.
Avengers assemble, they say? Audience assemble, I say! And assemble, and assemble, and assemble again…
(And make sure you stay through the credits for the now-expected next-movie teaser… Buffy and Angel fans will be particularly happy, even if they don't quite get the somewhat obscure comic-y reference…)
Maybe even better.
The Avengers, of course, are a superhero team made up of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Other heroes have come and gone amongst this happy few, in comic form, but here all you need to know is that this film serves as kind of a sequel to previous Marvel movies IRON MAN(both 1 and 2), THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN America, bringing the billionaire Tony Stark, the scientist Bruce Banner, the demigod Thor and the recently defrosted World War II veteran Steve Rogers together to fight against an invading alien threat, alongside spies Clint Barton (Jeremy Denner) and Natasha Romanov (Scarlett Johansson) and under the auspices of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Man, it's awesome. AWE. SOME.
Oh, it's by no means a perfect film. Whedon is perhaps just a shade too in love with S.H.I.E.L.D technology, and the weight of portent which is given to some truly innocuous lines Рespecially the final line Рfeels a little off-kilter. Flashing up a computer image of Natalie Portman's Jane (Thor's love interest from his movie) felt a little like an apology, and the shadowy government hacks who attempt to control Nick Fury are by-the-numbers backroom power players of the Cigarette Smoking Man-school, ruthless and annoyingly clich̩.
Everything else, though? Simply, outstandingly, without a shadow of a doubt incredible.
Just for fun, let's talk acting. All our returning superheroes reprise their roles with ease, Downey Jr. once again a delight as the arrogant billionaire Stark and Evans stoic and earnest as the displaced Cap. The award for Most Improved has to go to Chris Hemsworth, whose Thor is given a chance to rock some deadpan wit here, and rock it he surprisingly does. Johansson, of course, is gorgeous and ass-kicking as ever in her Black Widow leather, but is happily also given new levels of intriguing backstory at which to hint and play out, and her friend Hawkeye is given somewhat more to do here than he was allowed in Thor, Jeremy Renner's relaxed performance once again worthy of my beloved marksman's bow and arrow. Clark Gregg's mild-mannered Agent Coulson is adorable in his hero worship; meanwhile our main antagonist in this film is Loki, Thor's resentful trickster brother once again played with consummate creepy cool by Tom Hiddleston.
Oh, and hello again Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts! Aren't you funny and great?
Of the newcomers, I will admit to having had some reservations about Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner, as I had been a true devotee of Edward Norton's turn in the role, but I am big enough to admit when I am wrong: he was terrific here as the mousey, mild-mannered science guy with a chip on his shoulder, and the uses to which his Hulk was put throughout the course of this movie have almost entirely changed my mind about his place in the Marvel Universe. It was that good. Elsewhere, How I Met Your Mother's Cobie Smulders, as an agent of S. H. I. E. L. D., did a lot with a little – enough to hope we see more of her lithe and loyal lieutenant character in AVENGERS 2.
Indeed, after a rollicking, outrageous, hilarious outing like this one, who wouldn't already be eagerly awaiting a sequel? It is, unequivocally, the best comic book movie I have ever seen (and I've seen, well, all of them). More than that, it is my favorite movie so far this year – whew! I was so hoping BATTLESHIP wouldn't continue to hold that title for too much longer – and one I cannot wait to see again.
Avengers assemble, they say? Audience assemble, I say! And assemble, and assemble, and assemble again…
(And make sure you stay through the credits for the now-expected next-movie teaser… Buffy and Angel fans will be particularly happy, even if they don't quite get the somewhat obscure comic-y reference…)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)