1940's "The Mummy's Hand" featured western actor Tom Tyler as the undead pile of bandages. Tyler (listed eighth in the credits of 'Hand') obviously wasn't being prepped to carry Universal's horror banner into the remainder of the decade. So after the success of "The Wolf Man", and much to his displeasure, Lon Chaney Jr. had to slouch through the gauze for a remarkable 'three' sequels--the remarkable part being that Universal could squeeze so much milk from this particular cash-cow.
Tomb opens with an ample amount of stock footage from 'Mummy's Hand' recapping the important events from that chapter. Seeing old footage in these mummy flicks is no big surprise--the fact that the filmmakers were not shy about reusing the close-ups of Tom Tyler (in makeup) as Kharis did puzzle me. Exactly how thin was the budget for 'Tomb' that some new close-up shots of Chaney as Kharis couldn't be cut into the picture?
George Zucco returns as high priest Andoheb, proving to be nearly as bulletproof as the mummy, having escaped the events of the last movie with 'only' a crushed arm & a full head of hair (maybe he rubbed some tana on his scalp). Also returning is what was already becoming a tedious plot device: The new priest put in charge of Kharis--apparently raging with suppressed libido--becomes enamored with some American skirt & usually suffers some violent (and well deserved) death.
However, it all speeds along at a quickie pace (all of Chaney's mummy pictures barely eclipse the 60 minute mark) and it's supplied with the usual atmosphere & mood music that at this stage of the game make it a good enough occupier of one's time. Of the quartet of Kharis films, 'Tomb' would be my favorite. It's certainly a more atmospheric piece than its predecessor and not bogged down with any of the inane comic relief.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Review of "Prometheus" (2012)
It is hard to say too much about Prometheus without spoiling it. First of all, those expecting to see the original Aliens are not seeing this movie for all the right reasons. Yes, it is part of the Alien universe and set before the first movie, but it doesn't feature those Aliens and instead tells a brand new story of merging the two worlds together.
With Ridley Scott back to directing, Prometheus used the similar setup of making researchers explore an alien world, only this time there is a longer setup and more suspense driven to events unfolding. The ship in this movie is very reminiscent of the one in Alien, although it is different in design and has some new interesting gadgets and pieces of technology we haven't seen before. There's no denying that there are things people will pick up relating to Alien, and I'm really glad they didn't tone down the violence for PG-13 rated audiences. Either way, you can watch Prometheus first before the other Alien movies.
On the acting side of things, I found Michael Fassbender's Android character David to be the standout for the movie. I also liked the protagonist Noomi Rapace and the supporting cast of Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba. All strong performances, but perhaps if there's only one small complaint I could think of, is that maybe the supporting characters didn't get enough development time. Thankfully, Scott and the team keep the movie going at a very good pace with emotional depth at the right moments.
Overall, Prometheus on first viewing was what I expected, a movie using it's original base movie Alien as a structure to produce a new story with new characters/lifeforms to lead up to other Alien story lines. It is highly likely the references will become more obvious in sequels to this, but Prometheus manages to bring a story that works as a standalone but also a prequel at the same time, which is good for all viewing audiences, and I think Scott was trying to bring the grisly/dark atmosphere movies of Alien without being too in your face, which I thought was the right direction for this movie.
With Ridley Scott back to directing, Prometheus used the similar setup of making researchers explore an alien world, only this time there is a longer setup and more suspense driven to events unfolding. The ship in this movie is very reminiscent of the one in Alien, although it is different in design and has some new interesting gadgets and pieces of technology we haven't seen before. There's no denying that there are things people will pick up relating to Alien, and I'm really glad they didn't tone down the violence for PG-13 rated audiences. Either way, you can watch Prometheus first before the other Alien movies.
On the acting side of things, I found Michael Fassbender's Android character David to be the standout for the movie. I also liked the protagonist Noomi Rapace and the supporting cast of Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, and Idris Elba. All strong performances, but perhaps if there's only one small complaint I could think of, is that maybe the supporting characters didn't get enough development time. Thankfully, Scott and the team keep the movie going at a very good pace with emotional depth at the right moments.
Overall, Prometheus on first viewing was what I expected, a movie using it's original base movie Alien as a structure to produce a new story with new characters/lifeforms to lead up to other Alien story lines. It is highly likely the references will become more obvious in sequels to this, but Prometheus manages to bring a story that works as a standalone but also a prequel at the same time, which is good for all viewing audiences, and I think Scott was trying to bring the grisly/dark atmosphere movies of Alien without being too in your face, which I thought was the right direction for this movie.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Review of "A Bug's Life" (1998)
(originally a response to a movie reviewer who said A Bug's Life was too much, too fast--he was "dazed and exhausted" by the visuals, and seemed to ignore the story completely)
Okay, first off, I'm 30 years old, have a full-time job, a wife and two girls... So maybe I'm nuts and just really good at hiding it...but not only did I NOT come away from A Bug's Life exhausted or dazed, it wasn't until I saw it the second time that I could even begin to truly appreciate the artistry and humour of the spectacular visuals--because the first time I went to see this movie, I got so wrapped up in the story and the characters that I forgot that I was supposed to be sitting there being "wowed" by each frame visually. How can you not empathize with Flik and his road-to-heck-paved-with-good-intentions life? "Heck" indeed, I found myself identifying with that little ant (not to mention some of the other bugs) in a lot more ways than one...and that, in itself, says more to me about what an incredible movie this is than a whole book. Of course, it's beautiful (every blade of grass, the tree, the rain...). Of course, what they can do with technology is amazing (you can read their lips! try it!). But this movie is not just a masterpiece of art and tech, not just an dazzling explosion of movement and color. No, A Bug's Life would be static if it were all that and no story. But, I'm glad to say, it's not!
A Bug's Life has real heart. Yes, there's a lot going on, storyline-wise as well as visually, but that's because the story and characters actually have some depth to them! Just because it's a kids' movie doesn't mean you should have to turn off your brain at the theatre door--kids are smarter than you think! Besides that, I think that the PIXAR crew made this for themselves, even before their kids...and it shows, in the amount of heart in has. This movie is moving, touching, funny, intriguing, and generally engrossing. The character development in such an ensemble cast is amazing, there's a major amount of character growth, and not just of the main character--so rare in animation and often in movies in general. It doesn't hit you over the head with its points once it's made them--every scene, every frame has a reason in the storyline for being there, and there are no gratuitous shots. Not always stating explicitly in words exactly what is going on means subtlety, to me, folks; it means not "dumbing down" your movie and assuming the audience is stupid, which it mostly is not.
All I can think is, if you can see A Bug's Life and not feel anything at all, then you must have never made a big mistake, hurt your friends, had a crush, fallen in love, been frustrated that no one would listen to you, lied to someone you care about, felt like a social misfit, gotten excited over a new idea, come up with a great idea, had what you thought was a great idea backfire, been awkward one moment and confident the next, felt the pressure of responsibility, stood up for yourself and your loved ones, stood alone against the crowd, felt like a failure, felt like a big success, felt the need to make a difference with your life in the lives of others...well, you get the point.
Final words: A+ rating from me! If you love Toy Story you'll most likely love this (PIXAR knows how to make movies with heart); if you do love it see it multiple times or you STILL won't know what you're missing (the amount of detail and subtlety here is considerable); and whenever you're feeling really low, just pretend it's a seed, okay?
Okay, first off, I'm 30 years old, have a full-time job, a wife and two girls... So maybe I'm nuts and just really good at hiding it...but not only did I NOT come away from A Bug's Life exhausted or dazed, it wasn't until I saw it the second time that I could even begin to truly appreciate the artistry and humour of the spectacular visuals--because the first time I went to see this movie, I got so wrapped up in the story and the characters that I forgot that I was supposed to be sitting there being "wowed" by each frame visually. How can you not empathize with Flik and his road-to-heck-paved-with-good-intentions life? "Heck" indeed, I found myself identifying with that little ant (not to mention some of the other bugs) in a lot more ways than one...and that, in itself, says more to me about what an incredible movie this is than a whole book. Of course, it's beautiful (every blade of grass, the tree, the rain...). Of course, what they can do with technology is amazing (you can read their lips! try it!). But this movie is not just a masterpiece of art and tech, not just an dazzling explosion of movement and color. No, A Bug's Life would be static if it were all that and no story. But, I'm glad to say, it's not!
A Bug's Life has real heart. Yes, there's a lot going on, storyline-wise as well as visually, but that's because the story and characters actually have some depth to them! Just because it's a kids' movie doesn't mean you should have to turn off your brain at the theatre door--kids are smarter than you think! Besides that, I think that the PIXAR crew made this for themselves, even before their kids...and it shows, in the amount of heart in has. This movie is moving, touching, funny, intriguing, and generally engrossing. The character development in such an ensemble cast is amazing, there's a major amount of character growth, and not just of the main character--so rare in animation and often in movies in general. It doesn't hit you over the head with its points once it's made them--every scene, every frame has a reason in the storyline for being there, and there are no gratuitous shots. Not always stating explicitly in words exactly what is going on means subtlety, to me, folks; it means not "dumbing down" your movie and assuming the audience is stupid, which it mostly is not.
All I can think is, if you can see A Bug's Life and not feel anything at all, then you must have never made a big mistake, hurt your friends, had a crush, fallen in love, been frustrated that no one would listen to you, lied to someone you care about, felt like a social misfit, gotten excited over a new idea, come up with a great idea, had what you thought was a great idea backfire, been awkward one moment and confident the next, felt the pressure of responsibility, stood up for yourself and your loved ones, stood alone against the crowd, felt like a failure, felt like a big success, felt the need to make a difference with your life in the lives of others...well, you get the point.
Final words: A+ rating from me! If you love Toy Story you'll most likely love this (PIXAR knows how to make movies with heart); if you do love it see it multiple times or you STILL won't know what you're missing (the amount of detail and subtlety here is considerable); and whenever you're feeling really low, just pretend it's a seed, okay?
Review of "Oliver & Company" (1988)
Curiously endearing Disney animated feature inspired by "Oliver Twist", transposing the Dickensian favorite fairly successfully to a modern-day New York setting - with the villainous Bill Sykes as a mobster (flanked by a couple of vicious mastiffs). Stylistically, it lies somewhere between LADY AND THE TRAMP (1955) and the adult-oriented films of Ralph Bakshi (without the sex and violence, naturally); as such, it stands oddly alongside the studio's usual fare from this rather lame era - and its vitality can now be seen to have foreshadowed the renaissance in quality (and critical appraisal) which they witnessed soon after, beginning with THE LITTLE MERMAID (1989). The anthropomorphic characters (which generally swamp the humans - Fagin is very much a good guy here, if still pitiful) are quite nicely fitted to class stereotypes: hence, we get a Hispanic chihauha (with an eye for the ladies) and a posh bulldog, among others, while Dodger is basically an updated version of Tramp and Oliver himself a cute but very brave kitten. The familiar and involved plot is all but jettisoned (especially in its second half) in favor of boisterous action and character comedy, with a bouncy score and rapid pace to match. In the end, it proved surprisingly good - and, at just 74 minutes, short enough not to overstay its welcome.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
"Fright Night" (2011)
Remaining in the same vein as many recent horror outings, "Fright Night" is more of an eerie action comedy than a straight-out scare fest. Good. That's my favorite type, especially considering scares in and of themselves hardly garner a pull anymore. Also, with a title like "Fright Night," we have an understanding with the filmmakers that we're getting one of those throwback horror flicks. You know, the ones that gave the horror genre that fun movie-going reputation it had in the 80′s before tasteless gore and tiresome predictability defiled the genre? This film succeeds on that promise, quickly turning itself into the quintessential "fun" horror flick perfect for Friday night.
Styled after Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (which inspired its own modern retelling, "Disturbia") with a suave vampire living next-door instead of a mysterious stranger, this plot is very similar to its original. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin; "Star Trek") is a ex-nerd who has joined 'the cool crowd,' dropping his oldest friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse; "Kick-Ass") for a hot cheerleader girlfriend (Imogen Poots; "28 Weeks Later"). Things are looking oh-so-grand for the little flake (I mean, come on, any guy who hurtfully tells his friend "the day my life got better was the day I stopped hanging with you" is well a douche), he gets a new next-door neighbor that his mom (Toni Collette; "The Sixth Sense") takes a liking to: Jerry Dandrige (Colin Farrell; "Horrible Bosses"). Now Jerry seems like a cool guy, but as we all know, you don't cast Colin Farrell to be your average next-door neighbor. Ed's attempts to convince Charley that Jerry is actually a vampire fail, but when Ed himself goes missing and Jerry shows proof of what he is, Charley goes to the only person who might have the answer: Peter Vincent (David Tennant; "Doctor Who"), the Las Vegas magician who boasts of supernatural knowledge on how to kill vampires.
The choice to modernize the original 1985 "Fright Night" doesn't like that bright an idea considering the current rule that all horror remakes suck, but somehow this became a unique effort due to diligent actors, a reliable director, and successful laugh and scare gags. It is, without exaggeration, the first great entry in the long line of atrocious horror remakes. It takes what we liked about the original and comes up some clever changes that update the story 26 years to the present.
From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, "Fright Night" boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller. The opening is a startling 3D shot through dark thunderclouds that ends in an impeccably-executed family massacre. With Craig Gillespie's (the outstanding director of "Lars and the Real Girl") imaginative direction and Ramin Djawadi's (scorer of "Iron Man" and "Mr. Brooks") jarringly effective and wholly memorable musical score, the film hits all the beats it strives for with manic zeal.
The all-star cast deliver a gratifying romp of suspense and chuckles, but the movie belongs to its villain and its anti-hero, Colin Farrell and David Tennant. The rest give solid performances (especially Mintz-Plasse), but they pale compared to the main act.
Colin Farrell, when given the opportunity, revels in the grittiness of villainy whenever he can. For Jerry Dandrige, Farrell is at an all-time evil high and unchains his dark side. Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).
The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn't like regular vampires. He seems more inspired by the worst of modern serial killers than mythical killing machines, with his secret torture rooms and closet full of dozens of uniforms signifying authority (from firemen to the post office to the police). He's modern without being "Twilight." He's a ominous hulking mass. Those characteristics mixed together with his bizarre personality create a rather unique Hollywood vampire. Due to this, I wish the "transformation" to full-on vampire face was never included, as it is poor CGI and takes away from Farrell's menace.
David Tennant, who I will admit I adore as the 10th Doctor Who, is a cinematic gem. His acting style has always been that of a Shakespearean extremist, and I can't think of a better role that has such obvious wicked glee in allowing him to let loose. There is something strangely mesmerizing in Tennant's scenes as the vulgar magician-turned-vampire-killer, especially in his first big scene where his vehemence and wide-eyed enthusiasm is outstandingly exaggerated. Also, seeing him acting with a giant shotgun is way more fun than I expected it to be. He's about as entertaining – if not more so – than the performance given by Roddy McDowall.
In the end, what really matters about this movie? Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling? Yes, especially when Jerry really is allowed to let loose his menacing charm and kill with the same love of general violence of a "Reservoir Dogs" character. Is the movie funny when it tries to be? Absolutely. The pop culture references – especially in a crack on "Twilight" and comparing Jerry to the shark from "Jaws" – work particularly well. This is a huge amount of fun. So if you walk into this expecting the right kind of movie, "Fright Night" is that perfect Friday night scare.
Styled after Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (which inspired its own modern retelling, "Disturbia") with a suave vampire living next-door instead of a mysterious stranger, this plot is very similar to its original. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin; "Star Trek") is a ex-nerd who has joined 'the cool crowd,' dropping his oldest friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse; "Kick-Ass") for a hot cheerleader girlfriend (Imogen Poots; "28 Weeks Later"). Things are looking oh-so-grand for the little flake (I mean, come on, any guy who hurtfully tells his friend "the day my life got better was the day I stopped hanging with you" is well a douche), he gets a new next-door neighbor that his mom (Toni Collette; "The Sixth Sense") takes a liking to: Jerry Dandrige (Colin Farrell; "Horrible Bosses"). Now Jerry seems like a cool guy, but as we all know, you don't cast Colin Farrell to be your average next-door neighbor. Ed's attempts to convince Charley that Jerry is actually a vampire fail, but when Ed himself goes missing and Jerry shows proof of what he is, Charley goes to the only person who might have the answer: Peter Vincent (David Tennant; "Doctor Who"), the Las Vegas magician who boasts of supernatural knowledge on how to kill vampires.
The choice to modernize the original 1985 "Fright Night" doesn't like that bright an idea considering the current rule that all horror remakes suck, but somehow this became a unique effort due to diligent actors, a reliable director, and successful laugh and scare gags. It is, without exaggeration, the first great entry in the long line of atrocious horror remakes. It takes what we liked about the original and comes up some clever changes that update the story 26 years to the present.
From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, "Fright Night" boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller. The opening is a startling 3D shot through dark thunderclouds that ends in an impeccably-executed family massacre. With Craig Gillespie's (the outstanding director of "Lars and the Real Girl") imaginative direction and Ramin Djawadi's (scorer of "Iron Man" and "Mr. Brooks") jarringly effective and wholly memorable musical score, the film hits all the beats it strives for with manic zeal.
The all-star cast deliver a gratifying romp of suspense and chuckles, but the movie belongs to its villain and its anti-hero, Colin Farrell and David Tennant. The rest give solid performances (especially Mintz-Plasse), but they pale compared to the main act.
Colin Farrell, when given the opportunity, revels in the grittiness of villainy whenever he can. For Jerry Dandrige, Farrell is at an all-time evil high and unchains his dark side. Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).
The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn't like regular vampires. He seems more inspired by the worst of modern serial killers than mythical killing machines, with his secret torture rooms and closet full of dozens of uniforms signifying authority (from firemen to the post office to the police). He's modern without being "Twilight." He's a ominous hulking mass. Those characteristics mixed together with his bizarre personality create a rather unique Hollywood vampire. Due to this, I wish the "transformation" to full-on vampire face was never included, as it is poor CGI and takes away from Farrell's menace.
David Tennant, who I will admit I adore as the 10th Doctor Who, is a cinematic gem. His acting style has always been that of a Shakespearean extremist, and I can't think of a better role that has such obvious wicked glee in allowing him to let loose. There is something strangely mesmerizing in Tennant's scenes as the vulgar magician-turned-vampire-killer, especially in his first big scene where his vehemence and wide-eyed enthusiasm is outstandingly exaggerated. Also, seeing him acting with a giant shotgun is way more fun than I expected it to be. He's about as entertaining – if not more so – than the performance given by Roddy McDowall.
In the end, what really matters about this movie? Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling? Yes, especially when Jerry really is allowed to let loose his menacing charm and kill with the same love of general violence of a "Reservoir Dogs" character. Is the movie funny when it tries to be? Absolutely. The pop culture references – especially in a crack on "Twilight" and comparing Jerry to the shark from "Jaws" – work particularly well. This is a huge amount of fun. So if you walk into this expecting the right kind of movie, "Fright Night" is that perfect Friday night scare.
Review of "Cowboys & Aliens"
The answer to the obvious question hovering around Jon Favreau's latest action blockbuster is yes, "Cowboys & Aliens" is as ridiculous as the title sounds. Yet blame doesn't quite belong on Favreau's shoulders or that of star Daniel Craig or the rest of the cast; rather, the failure of this alien-infested Western results from the domino effect of the countless studios and producers who put their faith (and money) in a concept rather than a story.
To be fair, I know nothing of the Platinum Studios comic by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, but it couldn't have been all that good if all the hottest screenwriters in Hollywood couldn't whip together a plot worth a damn. The duos behind "Iron Man" and "Star Trek" along with "Lost" writer Damon Lindelof all took cracks at the screenplay and an earlier treatment from another pair of "it" writers who wrote next month's "Conan the Barbarian" was discarded. Frankly, criticism of "Cowboys & Aliens" all stems from a story with lackluster characters equipped with cliché motivations. Despite some cool aliens, the action doesn't offer anything unique enough to counter that we've no reason to care.
Craig stars as Jake Lonergan, a stoic outlaw in Arizona sometime in the late 19th Century who wakes up with no memory and some metal device on his wrist. When he arrives in the town of Absolution, the sheriff discovers he's wanted and attempts to ship him off for a reward. That's when the aliens attack, bombing the town and roping up locals before flying off into the night. Lonergan's bracelet activates as a weapon and suddenly he's the only one capable of defeating these things. He joins a rescue party led by a grumpy Civil War vet named Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) and they all set off to find out what happened to their loved ones.
The script introduces characters willy-nilly and provides little satisfactory explanation for anything that happens. The story paints Lonergan as a quiet badass, but one who has flashes of some woman he loved. Because his past slowly unravels with nothing revelatory to show for it as the film wears on, it's tough to care much or even see him as capable of romantic feelings. Regardless, a woman named Ella (Olivia Wilde) keeps approaching him with questions he doesn't have the answers to and she evolves into a love interest for nothing but the sake of it. Sam Rockwell has little to no bearing on the film other than serving an example of an otherwise peaceful man who will do whatever it takes to get his wife back. He's a waste in the role. As for Ford, he just gets on screen and acts grumpy and impatient. We've seen everyone on board do so much better. Did these folks not read the script? Probably not considering the number of drafts alone.
Worst of all, the script thinks we will care; after all, this is "Cowboys & Frickin' Aliens!" In the final sequence, suddenly all these supporting characters have little moments together out of seemingly thin air. What are supposed to be moments in the story tying up relationship subplots between characters end up as reminders that these relationships and subplots even existed in the first place. Consequently, the film's pivotal moments result not in hearts beating, but eyes rolling.
In fairness, Favreau shows his adeptness from an action perspective once again in this film. The movie looks good if nothing else with strong visual effects and a strong concept team behind the aliens and related technology. The genre experiment generally works from a tonal perspective, an obstacle that certainly stood in Favreau's path. The film feels like a Western and one in which aliens could feasibly exist, so no problems due to identity crisis.
Yet the film never provides a single reason to justify why it had to be a story about cowboys and aliens. In that sense, the movie results in nothing more than several studios and producers thinking we'd simply be interested in a fusion of a shoot-em-up Western with an alien invasion. All involved failed to ask the one critical question when making a film based on a concept: "is there a good story here?" No, there's not. Despite every ounce of you wanting to find a reason to care about what happens, none arrives. As such, "Cowboys & Aliens" offers watchable but lifeless entertainment.
To be fair, I know nothing of the Platinum Studios comic by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, but it couldn't have been all that good if all the hottest screenwriters in Hollywood couldn't whip together a plot worth a damn. The duos behind "Iron Man" and "Star Trek" along with "Lost" writer Damon Lindelof all took cracks at the screenplay and an earlier treatment from another pair of "it" writers who wrote next month's "Conan the Barbarian" was discarded. Frankly, criticism of "Cowboys & Aliens" all stems from a story with lackluster characters equipped with cliché motivations. Despite some cool aliens, the action doesn't offer anything unique enough to counter that we've no reason to care.
Craig stars as Jake Lonergan, a stoic outlaw in Arizona sometime in the late 19th Century who wakes up with no memory and some metal device on his wrist. When he arrives in the town of Absolution, the sheriff discovers he's wanted and attempts to ship him off for a reward. That's when the aliens attack, bombing the town and roping up locals before flying off into the night. Lonergan's bracelet activates as a weapon and suddenly he's the only one capable of defeating these things. He joins a rescue party led by a grumpy Civil War vet named Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) and they all set off to find out what happened to their loved ones.
The script introduces characters willy-nilly and provides little satisfactory explanation for anything that happens. The story paints Lonergan as a quiet badass, but one who has flashes of some woman he loved. Because his past slowly unravels with nothing revelatory to show for it as the film wears on, it's tough to care much or even see him as capable of romantic feelings. Regardless, a woman named Ella (Olivia Wilde) keeps approaching him with questions he doesn't have the answers to and she evolves into a love interest for nothing but the sake of it. Sam Rockwell has little to no bearing on the film other than serving an example of an otherwise peaceful man who will do whatever it takes to get his wife back. He's a waste in the role. As for Ford, he just gets on screen and acts grumpy and impatient. We've seen everyone on board do so much better. Did these folks not read the script? Probably not considering the number of drafts alone.
Worst of all, the script thinks we will care; after all, this is "Cowboys & Frickin' Aliens!" In the final sequence, suddenly all these supporting characters have little moments together out of seemingly thin air. What are supposed to be moments in the story tying up relationship subplots between characters end up as reminders that these relationships and subplots even existed in the first place. Consequently, the film's pivotal moments result not in hearts beating, but eyes rolling.
In fairness, Favreau shows his adeptness from an action perspective once again in this film. The movie looks good if nothing else with strong visual effects and a strong concept team behind the aliens and related technology. The genre experiment generally works from a tonal perspective, an obstacle that certainly stood in Favreau's path. The film feels like a Western and one in which aliens could feasibly exist, so no problems due to identity crisis.
Yet the film never provides a single reason to justify why it had to be a story about cowboys and aliens. In that sense, the movie results in nothing more than several studios and producers thinking we'd simply be interested in a fusion of a shoot-em-up Western with an alien invasion. All involved failed to ask the one critical question when making a film based on a concept: "is there a good story here?" No, there's not. Despite every ounce of you wanting to find a reason to care about what happens, none arrives. As such, "Cowboys & Aliens" offers watchable but lifeless entertainment.
Quick Review of "The Lost Boys"
Given that I just found this gem for the grand total of $3 at our local Big Lots (the Collector's Ed. no less!), I figured I'd try my hand at a quick review:
There are many films about vampires, but one that is almost always remembered with a shy smile on the face is definitely "The Lost Boys". As one of the best remembered films of the 80s, this movie has become part of pop culture and a defining film for that period as it showcases most of what was cool or hip in that decade. While its status as "horror classic" has a lot to do with the nostalgic factor, it's an entertaining film on its own right and its modernization of the vampire myth along with its tongue in cheek humor still make for a charming and funny session of pure mindless entertainment.
The movie begins with Lucy Emerson (Dianne Wiest) as she moves to Santa Clara, California, with her two teenager sons, Michael (Jason Patric) and Sam (Corey Haim) after a bitter divorce. In Santa Clara, Michael becomes involved with a local gang of bikers who have a dark and mysterious secret while Sam becomes friends with two weird boys who claim that the town is being invaded by vampires and its their mission to get rid of them. As Michael begins to act strange, Sam suspects that his brother has become one of the undead and begins to take his friends seriously.
Directed by Joel Schumacher, "The Lost Boys" is a movie that effectively combines a cool and attractive look with a simple but entertaining plot resulting in a successful and charming film. The story modernizes classic elements of the vampire myth and adapts it to its time with intelligence and definitely tongue in cheek humor. In fact, this self-aware comedy approach is what makes the film enjoyable, and it relies more on fun and laughs than in actual scares. The plot is rather simple, and lacks some character development, but it makes an interesting (although also quite simplistic) analogy between the troubles of youth and becoming a vampire.
Visually the movie looks great, although by now it has that dated nostalgic look of a past decade. Still, the flamboyant visual composition fits perfectly in the film's time and context and it is one of the films biggest assets. Schumacher's fluid and energetic camera-work makes the movie flow at with a nice rhythm and the movie never becomes dull or boring.
The cast is very effective and everyone makes a great job. Corey Haim is remarkably good and while he may not be a good actor, in this film he is perfect for the role of Sam. Jason Patric is less lucky and he is overshadowed by the very talented Kiefer Sutherland, who steals every scene with his charm and presence. Jami Gertz gives a somewhat forgettable performance but veterans Dianne Wiest and Edward Herrmann are both excellent in their roles and have some funny lines.
"The Lost Boys" suffers a lot from its own self-referential nature, it looks old and severely dated by now even when it's 20 years ago when it was released for the first time. The cleverly written plot is very entertaining, but somehow the lack of character development and the comedy take on the story make it to never reach its full potential. The premise is quite interesting but the "Lost Boys" theme is never fully explored leaving at a nice but a bit shallow experience.
Definitely most of the charm of "The Lost Boys" is due to nostalgia, as the movie is now basically a time capsule of the 80s. However, it is hard to deny that despite being what one would call a "popcorn movie", in its time it was an intelligent, original and fresh take on vampires. While it may not be a landmark of horror of a life-changing experience, "The Lost Boys" is one of those films that will definitely deliver what they promise: a healthy dose of mindless entertainment.
There are many films about vampires, but one that is almost always remembered with a shy smile on the face is definitely "The Lost Boys". As one of the best remembered films of the 80s, this movie has become part of pop culture and a defining film for that period as it showcases most of what was cool or hip in that decade. While its status as "horror classic" has a lot to do with the nostalgic factor, it's an entertaining film on its own right and its modernization of the vampire myth along with its tongue in cheek humor still make for a charming and funny session of pure mindless entertainment.
The movie begins with Lucy Emerson (Dianne Wiest) as she moves to Santa Clara, California, with her two teenager sons, Michael (Jason Patric) and Sam (Corey Haim) after a bitter divorce. In Santa Clara, Michael becomes involved with a local gang of bikers who have a dark and mysterious secret while Sam becomes friends with two weird boys who claim that the town is being invaded by vampires and its their mission to get rid of them. As Michael begins to act strange, Sam suspects that his brother has become one of the undead and begins to take his friends seriously.
Directed by Joel Schumacher, "The Lost Boys" is a movie that effectively combines a cool and attractive look with a simple but entertaining plot resulting in a successful and charming film. The story modernizes classic elements of the vampire myth and adapts it to its time with intelligence and definitely tongue in cheek humor. In fact, this self-aware comedy approach is what makes the film enjoyable, and it relies more on fun and laughs than in actual scares. The plot is rather simple, and lacks some character development, but it makes an interesting (although also quite simplistic) analogy between the troubles of youth and becoming a vampire.
Visually the movie looks great, although by now it has that dated nostalgic look of a past decade. Still, the flamboyant visual composition fits perfectly in the film's time and context and it is one of the films biggest assets. Schumacher's fluid and energetic camera-work makes the movie flow at with a nice rhythm and the movie never becomes dull or boring.
The cast is very effective and everyone makes a great job. Corey Haim is remarkably good and while he may not be a good actor, in this film he is perfect for the role of Sam. Jason Patric is less lucky and he is overshadowed by the very talented Kiefer Sutherland, who steals every scene with his charm and presence. Jami Gertz gives a somewhat forgettable performance but veterans Dianne Wiest and Edward Herrmann are both excellent in their roles and have some funny lines.
"The Lost Boys" suffers a lot from its own self-referential nature, it looks old and severely dated by now even when it's 20 years ago when it was released for the first time. The cleverly written plot is very entertaining, but somehow the lack of character development and the comedy take on the story make it to never reach its full potential. The premise is quite interesting but the "Lost Boys" theme is never fully explored leaving at a nice but a bit shallow experience.
Definitely most of the charm of "The Lost Boys" is due to nostalgia, as the movie is now basically a time capsule of the 80s. However, it is hard to deny that despite being what one would call a "popcorn movie", in its time it was an intelligent, original and fresh take on vampires. While it may not be a landmark of horror of a life-changing experience, "The Lost Boys" is one of those films that will definitely deliver what they promise: a healthy dose of mindless entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)