I can't say I've ever been a huge fan of horror movies. There are some horror films, like The Shining, that I do enjoy. However, I've never really been a fan of your basic teen slasher film that follows the formula so expertly skewered in the Scream franchise. The less I say about the whole torture porn subgenre, the better. But then there's Wes Craven. I've always thought Craven was a unique vision in horror films. On the surface, his films play like your basic formulaic slasher film. But, especially in his earlier films, there is something going on beyond the surface. The first Nightmare on Elm Street played with notions of reality and dreamworld. The Scream movies, as I've mentioned, turned genre conventions on their ear. I've even given some praise to Vampire in Brooklyn. I always thought it was an interesting twist on the vampire tale. One film that both scared the crap out of me and amazed me was New Nightmare. Craven goes all meta, with original Elm Street scream queen Heather Langenkamp playing herself, being terrorized by a real-world incarnation of Freddy Krueger. His more recent films have been a little lackluster, but I was still looking forward to (well, warily looking forward to) My Soul To Take, his latest effort. It's also the first film he's made that he also wrote since New Nightmare. Unfortunately, My Soul to Take is fairly run-of-the-mill in terms of its story and surprisingly tame as a horror film. Like his other films, My Soul to Take seems like a by-the-numbers slasher film with some supernatural elements thrown in. Seven children are born on the day a local serial killer is killed. "The Ripper" as he is called by media had killed seven people. We find out the Ripper is a mild-mannered family man who happens to suffer from schizophrenia. He doesn't remember his murderous rampages. When he tries to kill himself, the murderous Ripper takes over. Carnage ensues. Skip forward 16 years. The Ripper returns and begins killing the now-teenaged children one by one. The idea is that the seven original victim's souls found refuge in the seven babies. The Ripper's soul is believe to have taken refuge in one of the babies as well. The seven teenagers are straight out of the stock high school character yearbook. There's the oversexed jock Brandon (Nick Lashaway), the pretty girl Brittany (Paulina Olszyinski), the strange religious girl Penelope (Zena Grey), the geeky Alex (John Magaro), token black (and blind!) kid Jerome (Denzel Whitaker) and the token Asian Jay (Jeremy Chu). Then there's the meek Bug (Max Thieriot), who has suffered from horrible nightmare and migraine headaches since he was a child. He's the weirdo of the group and wow, does Craven ever pound on that particular nail. The story does make some attempts to connect the events going on with Native American and Haitian spiritualism, but does it in a totally conflicting way. The true identity of the killer is telegraphed very early on, taking a lot of the thrill out of the film. Also, if people were offended by my labeling the two minority characters as token, keep in mind that Mr. Chu is in the film for just a little over five minutes before he is shuffled off the mortal coil. Mr. Whitaker fare a little better. He makes it to the final reel. Here's the thing, he is not at all the part of the story. He shows up from time to time to scare the bullies away from Bug, but other than that, HE'S NOT IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. Max Thieriot is adequate as Bug, the character the movie centres around. Bug is troubled and as the other teens die, he begins to absorb their souls. At least, I think that is what we're supposed to believe. Bug starts acting all twitchy and repeats things the others said to him before he died, usually with some sort of affectation to his voice. In any case, it's very unclear. The movie has been the 3D conversion treatment. I don't know why. Nothing comes off the screen and everything looks dark. Aside from a means for the studio to jack up the weekend gross due to the premium for 3D films, I can't imagine why they did it with this movie. One thing about the movie that I did think effective was the knife used by The Ripper. When I first saw it, I immediately thought of Freddy Krueger's razor glove. It looked mean and nasty and very painful. That, at least, gave me a little shudder.
Reviews
8 Reviews
The Social Network
(2010)
A modern classic
1 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
With the leaves starting to change colour, the onset of movie awards season begins. The first salvo in the battle to be crowned best of the season is Columbia Picture's The Social Network. Unless you've been living on a deserted island for the past few months, I'm pretty sure you've heard of this movie. It focuses on the founding of and legal battles over the social networking juggernaut Facebook.com.
If you have been following the hype surrounding this film, you might believe this is the greatest story put to film since Citizen Kane. The honest truth is, it might be. The film has a lot of talent behind it, starting with director David Fincher, in a fine return to form after the saccharine Benjamin Button. Right there with him is noted screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who ably adapts the book The Accidental Billionaires that chronicled the rise of Facebook. Fincher assembles a great cast of young actors, led by Jesse Eisenberg as Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Joining him are Andrew Garfield (the new Peter Parker) as co-founder Eduardo Saverin, Justin Timberlake as Napster co-founder and early Facebook acolyte Sean Parker, Armie Hammer in the dual role of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who had a similar idea to Facebook that they approached Zuckerberg about, and Rooney Mara as Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriend, Erica Albright.
The actors are uniformly good, with Eisenberg and Garfield standing out amongst the others. They handle Sorkin's trademark rapid-fire dialogue with ease and are very convincing as these real-life people. Eisenberg as Zuckerberg eschews the Michael Cera-esquire persona he's developed in films like Zombieland and Adventureland. Here, he creates a man conflicted by his desire for recognition and his ruthless drive to achieve that recognition. Garfield makes Saverin an immensely likable and sympathetic character, Zuckerberg's best friend and partner who sees his vision of the company get destroyed as outside parties move in.
While Eisenberg and Garfield stand out the most, perhaps the most impressive was Justin Timberlake. He plays Parker as an manipulative opportunist, a man who has already tasted success and wants more. He's introduced to us waking up in the bed of a girl he barely knows and who doesn't know him at all. For Zuckerberg, Parker is everything he wants to be, attractive, funny, charming. The best scene for Timberlake occurs in a San Francisco nightclub where Zuckerberg and Parker discuss the future and potential of Facebook. Parker becomes an almost Faustian character, planting the seeds of discord that will eventually lead to the demise of Zuckerberg and Saverin's partnership and friendship. It's a seduction scene and it's done brilliantly.
At its heart, The Social Network is a story about two friends who go into business together and how that business destroys their relationship. Fincher breaks up the story a bit, moving back and forth between the early days of Facebook and meetings with lawyers that came later. You can see the pain and heartbreak on both actor's faces as the square off against each other, flanked by their respective lawyers. Watching their friendship slowly fall apart, you can't help but feel for both, as they perfectly complemented each other. Saverin is the more approachable, social comfortable half, the one that can deal with the public. Zuckerberg is the anti-social introvert, obsessed with pushing his creation.
Another element of the film added a lot to building the tension needed for movie's emotional payload to be delivered. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross create a great score that works brilliantly at underscore just what is happening in the movie. While it does become a bit obvious at certain points, for the most part Reznor and Ross's score is subdued, breaking out at certain points to enhance a certain emotional beat. It's a key component in the film.
As the first in what looks like a rather promising line up of fall films, ones that will be vying for awards season accolades later on, The Social Network is a substantial effort. It hits just the right note and is a fairly accurate reflection of the times we live in and how communication and interaction, the various social networks we engage in, are evolving at an ever-accelerating rate. The Social Network doesn't serve as a warning about this, nor did I really see it as a cautionary tale. It's a fascinating story, told impeccably well. http://tinyurl.com/2ddrf8j
If you have been following the hype surrounding this film, you might believe this is the greatest story put to film since Citizen Kane. The honest truth is, it might be. The film has a lot of talent behind it, starting with director David Fincher, in a fine return to form after the saccharine Benjamin Button. Right there with him is noted screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, who ably adapts the book The Accidental Billionaires that chronicled the rise of Facebook. Fincher assembles a great cast of young actors, led by Jesse Eisenberg as Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Joining him are Andrew Garfield (the new Peter Parker) as co-founder Eduardo Saverin, Justin Timberlake as Napster co-founder and early Facebook acolyte Sean Parker, Armie Hammer in the dual role of Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who had a similar idea to Facebook that they approached Zuckerberg about, and Rooney Mara as Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriend, Erica Albright.
The actors are uniformly good, with Eisenberg and Garfield standing out amongst the others. They handle Sorkin's trademark rapid-fire dialogue with ease and are very convincing as these real-life people. Eisenberg as Zuckerberg eschews the Michael Cera-esquire persona he's developed in films like Zombieland and Adventureland. Here, he creates a man conflicted by his desire for recognition and his ruthless drive to achieve that recognition. Garfield makes Saverin an immensely likable and sympathetic character, Zuckerberg's best friend and partner who sees his vision of the company get destroyed as outside parties move in.
While Eisenberg and Garfield stand out the most, perhaps the most impressive was Justin Timberlake. He plays Parker as an manipulative opportunist, a man who has already tasted success and wants more. He's introduced to us waking up in the bed of a girl he barely knows and who doesn't know him at all. For Zuckerberg, Parker is everything he wants to be, attractive, funny, charming. The best scene for Timberlake occurs in a San Francisco nightclub where Zuckerberg and Parker discuss the future and potential of Facebook. Parker becomes an almost Faustian character, planting the seeds of discord that will eventually lead to the demise of Zuckerberg and Saverin's partnership and friendship. It's a seduction scene and it's done brilliantly.
At its heart, The Social Network is a story about two friends who go into business together and how that business destroys their relationship. Fincher breaks up the story a bit, moving back and forth between the early days of Facebook and meetings with lawyers that came later. You can see the pain and heartbreak on both actor's faces as the square off against each other, flanked by their respective lawyers. Watching their friendship slowly fall apart, you can't help but feel for both, as they perfectly complemented each other. Saverin is the more approachable, social comfortable half, the one that can deal with the public. Zuckerberg is the anti-social introvert, obsessed with pushing his creation.
Another element of the film added a lot to building the tension needed for movie's emotional payload to be delivered. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross create a great score that works brilliantly at underscore just what is happening in the movie. While it does become a bit obvious at certain points, for the most part Reznor and Ross's score is subdued, breaking out at certain points to enhance a certain emotional beat. It's a key component in the film.
As the first in what looks like a rather promising line up of fall films, ones that will be vying for awards season accolades later on, The Social Network is a substantial effort. It hits just the right note and is a fairly accurate reflection of the times we live in and how communication and interaction, the various social networks we engage in, are evolving at an ever-accelerating rate. The Social Network doesn't serve as a warning about this, nor did I really see it as a cautionary tale. It's a fascinating story, told impeccably well. http://tinyurl.com/2ddrf8j
Despicable Me
(2010)
A most enjoyable film
10 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The second half of the summer movie season is now in full swing and I couldn't be happier. The first half of this summer has been downright infuriating with half-baked sequels and unnecessary 80s TV show adaptations that only serve to prove Hollywood is out of ideas. It seems the last vestige of original stories lies in animated films. At least, that is what this summer has shown me, as the best film so far has been Pixar's Toy Story 3.
Enter Despicable Me, film studio Universal's first foray into CG animation. They do a damn good job their first time out. What could've been clichéd and pandering is instead a charming, touching kid's film that should appeal to adults as well. Steve Carell voices the character Gru, the villain of the movie. There is no hero, however. Gru is not the antagonist, but rather, the villain we are meant to root for, as he is being challenged by a young upstart, Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). After Vector steals the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru needs to one-up him to maintain his status as baddest villain of them all. He announces he will steal the moon. Unable to procure the much-needed shrink ray from Vector's fortress, Gru adopts three orphan girls to use as a distraction. Of course, the three girls are just as cute as buttons. Will they melt his heart? Despicable Me deals with some pretty mature themes for some entertainment directed towards the 6-10 year old set. Gru has a disapproving mother (voiced by Julie Andrews, in a great bit of casting against type) who (as we learn in flashbacks) was very emotional distant during his childhood. The movie also brings up the downside of growing older. Gru has tried many schemes, most of which has failed. The new villain on the block is suddenly a much more attractive option for the Bank of Evil (formerly known as Lehman Brothers, a great little wink to the adult audience), leaving Gru out in the cold. The orphans are not without their own issues, either. They are forced to sell cookies for the orphanage they live in, which is run by an uncaring woman, more interested in sales quotas than the children she is charged with guarding. It's all pretty heavy stuff, though the story deals with it in a very lighthearted manner.
This being a kid's film, the three girls work their way into Gru's heart and we see the guy open up a little. Most of this transition takes place at an amusement park. This particular sequence is one of the highlights of the film, showing us the transition gradually and in a rather original way. It was actually quite moving.
The movie throws in some great visual references to the movies that inspired it. Gru's megalomaniacal scheme echo some of the best Bond villain schemes. Gru himself looks like an animated version of the Bond villain Blofeld, right down to the indistinct Eastern European accent. I also saw some visual similarities between Gry and The Penguin, particularly the one Danny DeVito played in 1992's Batman Returns. Both have the long curved nose and while The Penguin in that film had an army of, uh, penguins at his disposal, Gru has a loyal following of minions, cute little yellow creatures that obey his every command. These little guys provide a lot of the comic relief, thanks to their gibberish language, and though they are in almost every scene, they do not overstay their welcome. Chances are these yellow guys will be getting their own film soon enough.
The film is being shown in 3-D. In this case, the filmmakers use the technology effectively, which is a welcome change to most other 3-D movies that have been released this summer. Unlike films like The Last Airbender, Despicable Me makes sure we notice the depth of field with some great set pieces throughout the movie and some very amusing gags during the end credits. There's a part where Gru and the girls are riding a roller-coaster where the 3-D added a thrilling dimension to the viewing. It was much more compelling than watching CGI globes of water being hurled around the screen.
There is not much I can say that is negative about Despicable Me. The film is formulaic, following a blueprint that is almost as old cinema itself. The Vector character gets just a little grating as the film moves forward. It's also hard to believe a guy who makes guns that fire various aquatic life is in any way threatening or fiendishly clever. But maybe I'm being picky.
Despicable Me is great family entertainment. While it is not quite Toy Story 3, it does offer a great, original story that doesn't pander to the audience, no matter what age. Indeed, I saw the movie at a 10:10 showing, where there was not a child under 16 to be found and almost every seat was filled. It kept everyone is stitches. If this movie is any indication as to what we can expect for the rest of the summer, things look promising.
http://tinyurl.com/2eglbmc
Enter Despicable Me, film studio Universal's first foray into CG animation. They do a damn good job their first time out. What could've been clichéd and pandering is instead a charming, touching kid's film that should appeal to adults as well. Steve Carell voices the character Gru, the villain of the movie. There is no hero, however. Gru is not the antagonist, but rather, the villain we are meant to root for, as he is being challenged by a young upstart, Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). After Vector steals the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru needs to one-up him to maintain his status as baddest villain of them all. He announces he will steal the moon. Unable to procure the much-needed shrink ray from Vector's fortress, Gru adopts three orphan girls to use as a distraction. Of course, the three girls are just as cute as buttons. Will they melt his heart? Despicable Me deals with some pretty mature themes for some entertainment directed towards the 6-10 year old set. Gru has a disapproving mother (voiced by Julie Andrews, in a great bit of casting against type) who (as we learn in flashbacks) was very emotional distant during his childhood. The movie also brings up the downside of growing older. Gru has tried many schemes, most of which has failed. The new villain on the block is suddenly a much more attractive option for the Bank of Evil (formerly known as Lehman Brothers, a great little wink to the adult audience), leaving Gru out in the cold. The orphans are not without their own issues, either. They are forced to sell cookies for the orphanage they live in, which is run by an uncaring woman, more interested in sales quotas than the children she is charged with guarding. It's all pretty heavy stuff, though the story deals with it in a very lighthearted manner.
This being a kid's film, the three girls work their way into Gru's heart and we see the guy open up a little. Most of this transition takes place at an amusement park. This particular sequence is one of the highlights of the film, showing us the transition gradually and in a rather original way. It was actually quite moving.
The movie throws in some great visual references to the movies that inspired it. Gru's megalomaniacal scheme echo some of the best Bond villain schemes. Gru himself looks like an animated version of the Bond villain Blofeld, right down to the indistinct Eastern European accent. I also saw some visual similarities between Gry and The Penguin, particularly the one Danny DeVito played in 1992's Batman Returns. Both have the long curved nose and while The Penguin in that film had an army of, uh, penguins at his disposal, Gru has a loyal following of minions, cute little yellow creatures that obey his every command. These little guys provide a lot of the comic relief, thanks to their gibberish language, and though they are in almost every scene, they do not overstay their welcome. Chances are these yellow guys will be getting their own film soon enough.
The film is being shown in 3-D. In this case, the filmmakers use the technology effectively, which is a welcome change to most other 3-D movies that have been released this summer. Unlike films like The Last Airbender, Despicable Me makes sure we notice the depth of field with some great set pieces throughout the movie and some very amusing gags during the end credits. There's a part where Gru and the girls are riding a roller-coaster where the 3-D added a thrilling dimension to the viewing. It was much more compelling than watching CGI globes of water being hurled around the screen.
There is not much I can say that is negative about Despicable Me. The film is formulaic, following a blueprint that is almost as old cinema itself. The Vector character gets just a little grating as the film moves forward. It's also hard to believe a guy who makes guns that fire various aquatic life is in any way threatening or fiendishly clever. But maybe I'm being picky.
Despicable Me is great family entertainment. While it is not quite Toy Story 3, it does offer a great, original story that doesn't pander to the audience, no matter what age. Indeed, I saw the movie at a 10:10 showing, where there was not a child under 16 to be found and almost every seat was filled. It kept everyone is stitches. If this movie is any indication as to what we can expect for the rest of the summer, things look promising.
http://tinyurl.com/2eglbmc
Cyrus
(I) (2010)
An Enjoyable flick, even if the story isn't much
7 July 2010
Cyrus is the kind of movie that most critics people would label "off-beat". The story is decidedly weird, the dialogue is heavily improvised, with quirky characters. Written and directed by Mark and Jay Duplass, the movie is actually pretty funny and pretty heartfelt. There's a bit of a New Age-y vibe to the film that added to the quirkiness.
The Duplass Brothers are stars in the ultra-low budget mumblecore scene, where improve and economy are prized. They've directed some of the most successful movies of the "genre", if you can call it that, most notably the The Puffy Chair and Baghead. Cyrus is essentially a mumblecore movie done with a budget greater than $15,000. The story is classic romantic comedy fodder. John (John C. Reilly) is a lonely middle-aged man, struggling to get past his divorce, which happened seven years ago. His ex-wife and her new fiancé bring him to a party, where he meets the bright-eyed Molly (Marisa Tomei). She sees something in the schlub and they hit it off immediately. They spend a couple nights together at John's place, though Molly always leaves partway through the night, with no explanation. John follows her home one night and discovers she has a 21-year-old son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who still lives with her. Cyrus and Molly are very close, interacting more like good friends than mother and son. Cyrus is jealously protective of his mother and begins to interfere in their relationship for his own ends.
As I mentioned earlier, the movie is mostly improvised, as most of the Duplass Brothers movies are. Thankfully, Reilly and Hill are fairly adept at keeping things lively, and funny. Tomei, who is only getting better with age, holds her own against the two, making Molly a person with only afew lines of dialogue. Catherine Keener plays John's ex, Jamie, whom he maintains a friendship with. She is limited in her role, though she serves as a grounding wire for John where his neurotic tendencies start to take over.
The real show is between John and Cyrus. John deeply cares for Molly and she returns that affection, something that Cyrus cannot abide. His mother is his and no one elses. Thus begins some of the most passive aggressive fighting I've ever seen. Jonah Hill, who usually plays angry fat guy, tones it down for most of the movie, letting the anger show a little at a time. Reilly responds wonderfully, first confused, then hurt, then vengeful. His battle of wills with Cyrus as they (quietly) fight it out over Molly is painfully awkward at times, but also very funny. It's not so much a game of oneupsmanship as just who can outlast the other. In fact, this movie reminded me of Reilly's 2008 comedy Step Brothers, though Hill is far less grating than Will Ferrell.
While the performances are great to watch, the story itself is very thin. At only 92 minutes long, the story doesn't get fleshed out very much, focusing on the characters. While this keeps the movie from falling into the rom-com clichés, it doesn't give it a chance to do anything original. It's very talky, with lots of "I feel " stuff that gives the film that New Age-y feel.
Cyrus is definitely worth seeing, if you're a fan of cinema. Those looking for 90 minutes of escape may well prefer to check out the latest Adam Sandler movie down the hall in the cineplex. I doubt they'd find what their looking for with Cyrus.
The Duplass Brothers are stars in the ultra-low budget mumblecore scene, where improve and economy are prized. They've directed some of the most successful movies of the "genre", if you can call it that, most notably the The Puffy Chair and Baghead. Cyrus is essentially a mumblecore movie done with a budget greater than $15,000. The story is classic romantic comedy fodder. John (John C. Reilly) is a lonely middle-aged man, struggling to get past his divorce, which happened seven years ago. His ex-wife and her new fiancé bring him to a party, where he meets the bright-eyed Molly (Marisa Tomei). She sees something in the schlub and they hit it off immediately. They spend a couple nights together at John's place, though Molly always leaves partway through the night, with no explanation. John follows her home one night and discovers she has a 21-year-old son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who still lives with her. Cyrus and Molly are very close, interacting more like good friends than mother and son. Cyrus is jealously protective of his mother and begins to interfere in their relationship for his own ends.
As I mentioned earlier, the movie is mostly improvised, as most of the Duplass Brothers movies are. Thankfully, Reilly and Hill are fairly adept at keeping things lively, and funny. Tomei, who is only getting better with age, holds her own against the two, making Molly a person with only afew lines of dialogue. Catherine Keener plays John's ex, Jamie, whom he maintains a friendship with. She is limited in her role, though she serves as a grounding wire for John where his neurotic tendencies start to take over.
The real show is between John and Cyrus. John deeply cares for Molly and she returns that affection, something that Cyrus cannot abide. His mother is his and no one elses. Thus begins some of the most passive aggressive fighting I've ever seen. Jonah Hill, who usually plays angry fat guy, tones it down for most of the movie, letting the anger show a little at a time. Reilly responds wonderfully, first confused, then hurt, then vengeful. His battle of wills with Cyrus as they (quietly) fight it out over Molly is painfully awkward at times, but also very funny. It's not so much a game of oneupsmanship as just who can outlast the other. In fact, this movie reminded me of Reilly's 2008 comedy Step Brothers, though Hill is far less grating than Will Ferrell.
While the performances are great to watch, the story itself is very thin. At only 92 minutes long, the story doesn't get fleshed out very much, focusing on the characters. While this keeps the movie from falling into the rom-com clichés, it doesn't give it a chance to do anything original. It's very talky, with lots of "I feel " stuff that gives the film that New Age-y feel.
Cyrus is definitely worth seeing, if you're a fan of cinema. Those looking for 90 minutes of escape may well prefer to check out the latest Adam Sandler movie down the hall in the cineplex. I doubt they'd find what their looking for with Cyrus.
The Last Airbender
(2010)
The most inept film-making I have seen in years
1 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The only thing I can really say about The Last Airbender is this: Epic Fail. Just how epic? Paramount Pictures gave M. Night Shyamalan $150 million dollars to adapt the popular Nickolodeon cartoon for the big screen. What they got is an absolute mess of a movie, complete with poor acting, the most hackneyed script ever, and a last-minute conversion to 3-D that only serves to destroys what was possibly some lush cinematography. The Last Airbender is perhaps the worst film of the summer, a feat I thought Jonah Hex had locked down. However, Airbender makes a determined effort. Let me put it this way, as good as Toy Story 3 was, Airbender is just as bad. It was hard to find anything wrong with Toy Story 3. It is nigh impossible to find anything right with Airbender. The story is ridiculously complex. In a world where people can manipulate (bend) the four elements of air, earth, fire and water, depending on their tribal affiliation, there exists a being (the Avatar) who can manipulate all four. This person is also the sole being capable of communing the the "spirit world" which serves to keep things in balance. This being went missing 100 years ago, only to be found in a giant ice sphere by two children of the water tribe. In the 100 years the Avatar has been gone, the Fire tribe has begun conquering the others, though we're never really told why. The disgraced Prince Zuko(Dev Patel, the Slumdog Millionaire himself) of the Fire tribe wants to the Avatar so he can return to his family. The Water children need to save the Avatar to ensure the Fire people don't win. For this point on it becomes to silly to try and summarize. Shyamalan succumbs to his own hubris, loading the film with long, boring exposition communicated through long, boring speeches that I'm sure were meant to be inspirational. Instead they are clichéd, burdensome mounds of words that only slow down an already languidly paced film. He heaps some unnecessary narration on top of the exposition, condescending to the audience as he does it. Perhaps the narration was put in to help the film's target audience, the prepubescent b0ys and girls who watch the cartoon, understand where this convoluted story is going. Sadly, it doesn't. The dialogue is so corny, it left me squirming a little. Also bothersome is the ham-fisted way Shyamalan expounded his themes, which seem to be responsibility, responsibility, and the horror of industry destroying nature (lifted with little change from the Lord of the Rings). Seriously, the Fire people sail their world's oceans in giant steel yachts that feature gigantic smokestacks over visible flame. These stacks spew out a never ending cloud of dark, ashy smoke. The metaphor could not be more clear had it just been printed as a subtitle across the screen. The acting is bad across the board. The child cast as Aan, the Avatar, Noah Ringer, a wooden child actor if there ever was one. He speaks his lines as if reciting them of a cue card just off screen. The two Water tribe children, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) are no better. A colleague of mine I saw the film with noted that Rathbone seemed downright anxious every time he was on screen, delivering his lines tersely, with little emotion. The older actors just phone it in. The usually reliable Cliff Curtis looks bored stiff as the leader of the Fire people, while the main antagonist, a Fire general played by Aasif Mandvi, is neither menacing nor scary. He comes off as a schoolyard bully, all bluster and no balls. The only actor I found brought any sort of depth to his role was Shaun Toub (Yinsen from Iron Man). Playing Prince Zuko's Uncle Iroh, he's conflicted between his duty to the prince and his beliefs in the spirit world, something the Fire people have come to consider children's superstition. Perhaps the most egregious error of the movie is the 3-D conversion. 3-D tends to suck all the light out of the images it portends to display, leaving viewers with a murky picture where shadow and light blend together. There are no crisp lines in the film, no real detail. Which is a shame, as the film's setting should've been its biggest strength. The movie travels from an arctic campsite, where the whites should have popped against the bluish hues of the ice and water around it. When it travels to warmer climates, the greens and browns should have been awe-inspiring. It's not. It all looks faded. Much as with Clash of the Titans, the 3-D is barely noticeable throughout the film, and contributes nothing. I fear that Hollywood has cynically latched onto this fad for the high ticket price it commands rather than for any real artistic merit. My only relief was the movie was short, so I didn't get the usual headache 3-D movies tend to give me. I didn't expect much going into The Last Airbender. However, I didn't expect it to be quite so bad. It's like watching a train wreck unfold over 94 minutes. The problem is, that 94 minutes feels like an eternity. The end of the film hints at a sequel. I hope some divine being takes mercy on us all and never lets that happen.
The Karate Kid
(2010)
Finally a decent remake!
11 June 2010
I have to admit, I was prejudiced against The Karate Kid going into the theatre. Any cynic would be. With all the properties that are being remade, rebooted, and re-imagined with such poor results, it's easy to think this update of the 1984 original is just another attempt by Hollywood to destroy your childhood memories. Combine that with the fact that the movie takes place in China, where the protagonist learns KUNG FU, not KARATE, I doubt anyone would argue with you. That's what's so great about this remake: it's actually good. Very good, in fact.
The story is pretty much the same as the original, with China as the backdrop instead of Receda, California. Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) moves to China with his mom (Taraji P. Henson) when her company transfers her there. Immediately after arriving in China, Dre meets a pretty young girl named Meiying (Wenwen Han). He then gets the crap kicked out of him by Cheng (played with a vicious glee by Zhenwei Wang). Dre ends up at the same school as the girl and the bully, leading up to several confrontations. Dre gets a little payback after school one day, only to be chased by Cheng and his friends into an ally. Dre is saved from a terrible thrashing by Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the custodian of his apartment building. Mr Han tries to help Dre by speaking to the the kung fu master (Rongguang Yu) who trains the gang of bullies. Receiving only a challenge to fight, Han agrees to have Dre participate in an upcoming kung fu tournament. Then the training begins, with lots of hanging up coats and trips to mystical Chinese temples. There's even some running on the Great Wall.
The original movie is so loved because it had a great story and created a believable inter-generational friendship. Director Harald Zwart has managed to capture the magic of the original and bring it to his version. A lot of credit goes to the actors Chan and Smith. I'm particularly impressed by Smith. I thought he was a whiny little brat in The Day The Earth Stood Still. Here he brings a lot of depth to Dre, making his role as a young boy thrown into a completely different world very real. The scene where he fights with his mother about going home is heart-wrenching. There are times where he channels his father, but for the most part, Smith brings his character to life himself.
Chan is great as Mr. Han. This is not the wise-cracking Jackie Chan of Rumble in the Bronx or Operation Condor. Here, Chan plays introspective and quiet, a man carrying a large burden. Zwart lets the relationship between the two develop naturally: the grow closer as the training continues. There is no animosity at first with some cathartic moment that brings them together later. When Mr. Han finally reveals his burden to Dre (his wife and son died in a car accident while he was driving), it's that final hurdle of trust that cements the two together. What Dre does to help relieve Mr. Han's pain (I don't want to spoil it) is absolutely perfect. Zwart captures it all capably.
The other thing that impressed me about the movie was the fighting. Zwart shoots it close up, but not so close up you can't see anything. The fight between Han and the gang of bullies is most impressive. Chan is not quite as spry as he used to be, but you see flashes of the old Chan in that scene, with the use of props and getting the bad guys to beat themselves up.
The movie is not without its flaws though. The film is long, clocking in at over two hours. While the film moves fairly well, some fat could've been trimmed. The movie also falls prey to corny moments the betray the scenes they appear in. The thing that bothered me the most though, was the use of China as a mystic land. While the film ostensibly tries to stay away from any stereotyping, some does slip in. Mr. Han almost becomes the mystic Chinese helper, especially when he tends to Dre's injuries after the ally fight. Using a form of Chinese medicine called fire-cupping, Han heals Dre almost instantly. Another scene where the two travel to a kung fu temple in the Chinese mountains is also falls prey to this problem. The scene is supposed to enforce the necessity of focus in learning kung fu, but when you seen a woman charming a snake on the side of a cliff, it kind distracts you from what else is going on.
The movie has received some flack (perhaps rightly so) because of the title. There is no karate in the movie and is mentioned at one point as part of a joke. I'm a little confused why the filmmakers wouldn't just call it The Kung Fu Kid (that title is being used in China, Japan and South Korea). It does smack of cultural ignorance. It also seems like the producers are trying to cash in on the name. I'm pretty sure the same people who want to see the Karate Kid would go see the Kung Fu Kid, especially since the story is almost identical. But I digress.
Leaving the theatre, I have to say I was quite impressed with The Karate Kid. It's perhaps the first movie this summer that offers quality family entertainment (though the language gets a little rough at times). The fights to get pretty brutal at times, so I wouldn't bring anyone too young. But the film is better than most. It doesn't pander and it doesn't preach, it just tells the story, leaving the audience to take from it what they want. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good movie to see this weekend.
The story is pretty much the same as the original, with China as the backdrop instead of Receda, California. Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) moves to China with his mom (Taraji P. Henson) when her company transfers her there. Immediately after arriving in China, Dre meets a pretty young girl named Meiying (Wenwen Han). He then gets the crap kicked out of him by Cheng (played with a vicious glee by Zhenwei Wang). Dre ends up at the same school as the girl and the bully, leading up to several confrontations. Dre gets a little payback after school one day, only to be chased by Cheng and his friends into an ally. Dre is saved from a terrible thrashing by Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the custodian of his apartment building. Mr Han tries to help Dre by speaking to the the kung fu master (Rongguang Yu) who trains the gang of bullies. Receiving only a challenge to fight, Han agrees to have Dre participate in an upcoming kung fu tournament. Then the training begins, with lots of hanging up coats and trips to mystical Chinese temples. There's even some running on the Great Wall.
The original movie is so loved because it had a great story and created a believable inter-generational friendship. Director Harald Zwart has managed to capture the magic of the original and bring it to his version. A lot of credit goes to the actors Chan and Smith. I'm particularly impressed by Smith. I thought he was a whiny little brat in The Day The Earth Stood Still. Here he brings a lot of depth to Dre, making his role as a young boy thrown into a completely different world very real. The scene where he fights with his mother about going home is heart-wrenching. There are times where he channels his father, but for the most part, Smith brings his character to life himself.
Chan is great as Mr. Han. This is not the wise-cracking Jackie Chan of Rumble in the Bronx or Operation Condor. Here, Chan plays introspective and quiet, a man carrying a large burden. Zwart lets the relationship between the two develop naturally: the grow closer as the training continues. There is no animosity at first with some cathartic moment that brings them together later. When Mr. Han finally reveals his burden to Dre (his wife and son died in a car accident while he was driving), it's that final hurdle of trust that cements the two together. What Dre does to help relieve Mr. Han's pain (I don't want to spoil it) is absolutely perfect. Zwart captures it all capably.
The other thing that impressed me about the movie was the fighting. Zwart shoots it close up, but not so close up you can't see anything. The fight between Han and the gang of bullies is most impressive. Chan is not quite as spry as he used to be, but you see flashes of the old Chan in that scene, with the use of props and getting the bad guys to beat themselves up.
The movie is not without its flaws though. The film is long, clocking in at over two hours. While the film moves fairly well, some fat could've been trimmed. The movie also falls prey to corny moments the betray the scenes they appear in. The thing that bothered me the most though, was the use of China as a mystic land. While the film ostensibly tries to stay away from any stereotyping, some does slip in. Mr. Han almost becomes the mystic Chinese helper, especially when he tends to Dre's injuries after the ally fight. Using a form of Chinese medicine called fire-cupping, Han heals Dre almost instantly. Another scene where the two travel to a kung fu temple in the Chinese mountains is also falls prey to this problem. The scene is supposed to enforce the necessity of focus in learning kung fu, but when you seen a woman charming a snake on the side of a cliff, it kind distracts you from what else is going on.
The movie has received some flack (perhaps rightly so) because of the title. There is no karate in the movie and is mentioned at one point as part of a joke. I'm a little confused why the filmmakers wouldn't just call it The Kung Fu Kid (that title is being used in China, Japan and South Korea). It does smack of cultural ignorance. It also seems like the producers are trying to cash in on the name. I'm pretty sure the same people who want to see the Karate Kid would go see the Kung Fu Kid, especially since the story is almost identical. But I digress.
Leaving the theatre, I have to say I was quite impressed with The Karate Kid. It's perhaps the first movie this summer that offers quality family entertainment (though the language gets a little rough at times). The fights to get pretty brutal at times, so I wouldn't bring anyone too young. But the film is better than most. It doesn't pander and it doesn't preach, it just tells the story, leaving the audience to take from it what they want. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good movie to see this weekend.
An enjoyable summer film, but ultimately forgettable
30 May 2010
I've never been much of a video game player. I tend to mash buttons and swear loudly while playing Mario Bros., so anything beyond that, I tend to stay away. However, back in 2005, a good friend let me try Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. I was enamoured. It suited my button-smashing style though it slowly forced me to learn how to play the game properly. I really enjoyed it because the puzzles were challenging. the villain was great and the story was pretty decent.
So when I heard that uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer was going to make a big-budget adaptation of the movie, I was thrilled. Of course, video game adaptations have never fared very well on the big screen (I'm looking at you, Super Mario Bros and Ecks vs. Sever), so I had a little trepidation. When I saw the first trailer, I was a little underwhelmed. The movie looked good, but I didn't get a sense of what it was about.
The story is fairly convoluted. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Dastan, the adopted son of the King of Persia. After helping his brothers and uncle Nazim (Sir Ben Kingsley) attack an conquer the holy city of Alamut, he comes into possession of a dagger. Later accused of killing his father, Dastan flees with Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), leader of the city of Alamut. She reveals the dagger has the power to turn back time, which, in the wrong hands, would be very dangerous. There are betrayals, battles with mystic assassins, and copious shots of Arterton's cleavage. However, all this doesn't amount to much.
The film is an enjoyable diversions. The action is well-choreographed and well shot, even if director Mike Newell (Donny Brasco, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) goes a little overboard with the slow motion shots. The whole film is relatively well shot, with some sequences lifted directly from the source video game. However, the story is overly complicated and there is no "money shot", no big action sequence or iconic image that lingers in the viewers mind when they're walking out of the theatre. Honestly, by the time I got home, I'd already forgotten half the movie. Kingsley seems to phone in his performance as the conniving Nizam, bring no menace to the character. He's more petulant than evil.
What little did stand out was good. Alfred Molina as a scheming sheik who runs an ostrich racing racket was one good thing. Molina steals every scene he is in, going from silly to menacing with the turn of a word. His colleague Seso, a skilled knife thrower, is also impressive. Gyllenhaal does what he can with his role, though most of it seems to just require him to run and jump entertainingly, while flashing his most impressive torso. Arterton is good as Tamina, but again, is hindered by the story and dialogue, which is heavy on exposition throughout the movie. Gyllenhaal and Arterton may have had some great chemistry on screen, but the fact that both are tasked with explaining everything kills that and slows the movie down at some points. You kinda just figure they're going to wind up together.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a decent summer movie. It provides the right amount of thrills and laughs, but is ultimately forgettable. I doubt anyone will be talking about it by August.
So when I heard that uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer was going to make a big-budget adaptation of the movie, I was thrilled. Of course, video game adaptations have never fared very well on the big screen (I'm looking at you, Super Mario Bros and Ecks vs. Sever), so I had a little trepidation. When I saw the first trailer, I was a little underwhelmed. The movie looked good, but I didn't get a sense of what it was about.
The story is fairly convoluted. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Dastan, the adopted son of the King of Persia. After helping his brothers and uncle Nazim (Sir Ben Kingsley) attack an conquer the holy city of Alamut, he comes into possession of a dagger. Later accused of killing his father, Dastan flees with Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), leader of the city of Alamut. She reveals the dagger has the power to turn back time, which, in the wrong hands, would be very dangerous. There are betrayals, battles with mystic assassins, and copious shots of Arterton's cleavage. However, all this doesn't amount to much.
The film is an enjoyable diversions. The action is well-choreographed and well shot, even if director Mike Newell (Donny Brasco, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) goes a little overboard with the slow motion shots. The whole film is relatively well shot, with some sequences lifted directly from the source video game. However, the story is overly complicated and there is no "money shot", no big action sequence or iconic image that lingers in the viewers mind when they're walking out of the theatre. Honestly, by the time I got home, I'd already forgotten half the movie. Kingsley seems to phone in his performance as the conniving Nizam, bring no menace to the character. He's more petulant than evil.
What little did stand out was good. Alfred Molina as a scheming sheik who runs an ostrich racing racket was one good thing. Molina steals every scene he is in, going from silly to menacing with the turn of a word. His colleague Seso, a skilled knife thrower, is also impressive. Gyllenhaal does what he can with his role, though most of it seems to just require him to run and jump entertainingly, while flashing his most impressive torso. Arterton is good as Tamina, but again, is hindered by the story and dialogue, which is heavy on exposition throughout the movie. Gyllenhaal and Arterton may have had some great chemistry on screen, but the fact that both are tasked with explaining everything kills that and slows the movie down at some points. You kinda just figure they're going to wind up together.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is a decent summer movie. It provides the right amount of thrills and laughs, but is ultimately forgettable. I doubt anyone will be talking about it by August.
Robin Hood
(2010)
Robin Hood was just okay
25 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've always loved the story of Robin Hood. I remember being a kid and fantasizing about living in Sherwood Forest, leading my band of merry men as we stole for the corrupt wealthy overlords and gave it all to the poor. I watched Rocket Robin Hood. Even that damn Disney movie holds a special place in my heart.
So when I heard that Ridley Scott was doing a new Robin Hood movie, I was thrilled. Ridley Scott has made some of my favourite movies (Alien, Blade Runner), so who better to try their hand at telling a tale of the gallant thief of the Middle Ages. Then I heard that Russell Crowe had been cast as Robin Hood. Suddenly, I had misgivings. Scott and Crowe have made some great movies together (American Gangster) but they've made some real crap (A Good Year). Plus, at 45, Crowe seemed a little old for the part. Sean Connery played an older Robin Hood in Robin and Marian, but that was sort of the point.
However, my love of Robin Hood was greater than my trepidation and I ventured out to see the movie. What did I think? It was okay. The movie is essentially a long origin tale (kinda like Batman Begins but not as good), giving us the background on Robin Hood and how he came to live in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland apparently tried to base the story in fact, making Robin Hood a common archer on King Richard the Lionheart's crusade. King Richard dies, his arrogant, incompetent younger brother John ascends to the throne, and hijinks ensue. In this tale, John is betrayed by a friend, Godfrey (played by Mark Strong), who attempts to aid King Philippe of France in invading England.
There are two grave problem with this movie. One, it is far too flabby. Clocking in a two hours and twenty-eight minutes, there is not much action and far too much exposition. Indeed, when the film really starts to move, during the climatic battle with the French, the film is pretty much over. What's more, not all that much happens. The romance with Marion is woefully underdeveloped. Yes, Robin is a noble man and his gallantry wins her over, but there is no spark between the two actors (Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Marion).
The other problem is the lack of a good villain. In the Robin Hood tales, there are two great villains, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John. In this movie, the Sheriff of Nottingham is a far more conflicted character, bound by duty to pursue Robin Hood rather than any personal desire. I was unimpressed with Prince John. He comes off as a petty and jealous boy, rather than a crafty duplicitous conniver. He is played with almost comical overacting by Oscar Isaac. That leaves Mark Strong, who seems to specialize in being the bad guy. However, unlike his performance in Sherlock Holmes or Kick-Ass, he is severely lacking here. His reasons for betraying his country are never explicitly stated, so the audience is left wondering just why this guy is going around, slaughtering his own countrymen. Ambiguity aside, it's good to know the motivations of the villain. Seriously, I was longing for Alan Rickman to come sneering on to the screen while I was watching. Say what you will about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but Rickman owned the role as the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was almost pure evil personified in that movie.
That said, I did enjoy other parts of the film. Crowe was excellent as Robin Hood, despite his wandering accent (he's Scottish, no, he's Irish, maybe he's Welsh?). In the scenes where he must command his men and lead them into battle, I believed he was Robin Hood. The actors playing his merry men, Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and Allan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) were great. Watching the four men on screen, you got the sense that they had been in battle together and trusted each other implicitly. They three also provided some great comic relief. I also particularly enjoyed Max Von Sydow as Sir Walter Locksley, the man who takes in Robin Hood. The premise of the movie hinges on the fact that Robin Hood has assumed Locksley's son's identity as part of a ruse to return home from the crusade. Sydow plays the part perfectly, showing us a tired old man who still has some fight left in him.
It would've been interesting to see the film that they could have made, had they cut out some of the fat. If you're a big fan of the legend of Robin Hood, I suggest you check it out. Otherwise, wait for the DVD. At least it didn't include another power ballad from Bryan Adams.
So when I heard that Ridley Scott was doing a new Robin Hood movie, I was thrilled. Ridley Scott has made some of my favourite movies (Alien, Blade Runner), so who better to try their hand at telling a tale of the gallant thief of the Middle Ages. Then I heard that Russell Crowe had been cast as Robin Hood. Suddenly, I had misgivings. Scott and Crowe have made some great movies together (American Gangster) but they've made some real crap (A Good Year). Plus, at 45, Crowe seemed a little old for the part. Sean Connery played an older Robin Hood in Robin and Marian, but that was sort of the point.
However, my love of Robin Hood was greater than my trepidation and I ventured out to see the movie. What did I think? It was okay. The movie is essentially a long origin tale (kinda like Batman Begins but not as good), giving us the background on Robin Hood and how he came to live in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich and giving to the poor. Screenwriter Brian Helgeland apparently tried to base the story in fact, making Robin Hood a common archer on King Richard the Lionheart's crusade. King Richard dies, his arrogant, incompetent younger brother John ascends to the throne, and hijinks ensue. In this tale, John is betrayed by a friend, Godfrey (played by Mark Strong), who attempts to aid King Philippe of France in invading England.
There are two grave problem with this movie. One, it is far too flabby. Clocking in a two hours and twenty-eight minutes, there is not much action and far too much exposition. Indeed, when the film really starts to move, during the climatic battle with the French, the film is pretty much over. What's more, not all that much happens. The romance with Marion is woefully underdeveloped. Yes, Robin is a noble man and his gallantry wins her over, but there is no spark between the two actors (Crowe and Cate Blanchett as Marion).
The other problem is the lack of a good villain. In the Robin Hood tales, there are two great villains, the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John. In this movie, the Sheriff of Nottingham is a far more conflicted character, bound by duty to pursue Robin Hood rather than any personal desire. I was unimpressed with Prince John. He comes off as a petty and jealous boy, rather than a crafty duplicitous conniver. He is played with almost comical overacting by Oscar Isaac. That leaves Mark Strong, who seems to specialize in being the bad guy. However, unlike his performance in Sherlock Holmes or Kick-Ass, he is severely lacking here. His reasons for betraying his country are never explicitly stated, so the audience is left wondering just why this guy is going around, slaughtering his own countrymen. Ambiguity aside, it's good to know the motivations of the villain. Seriously, I was longing for Alan Rickman to come sneering on to the screen while I was watching. Say what you will about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but Rickman owned the role as the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was almost pure evil personified in that movie.
That said, I did enjoy other parts of the film. Crowe was excellent as Robin Hood, despite his wandering accent (he's Scottish, no, he's Irish, maybe he's Welsh?). In the scenes where he must command his men and lead them into battle, I believed he was Robin Hood. The actors playing his merry men, Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes) and Allan A'Dayle (Alan Doyle) were great. Watching the four men on screen, you got the sense that they had been in battle together and trusted each other implicitly. They three also provided some great comic relief. I also particularly enjoyed Max Von Sydow as Sir Walter Locksley, the man who takes in Robin Hood. The premise of the movie hinges on the fact that Robin Hood has assumed Locksley's son's identity as part of a ruse to return home from the crusade. Sydow plays the part perfectly, showing us a tired old man who still has some fight left in him.
It would've been interesting to see the film that they could have made, had they cut out some of the fat. If you're a big fan of the legend of Robin Hood, I suggest you check it out. Otherwise, wait for the DVD. At least it didn't include another power ballad from Bryan Adams.
Tell Your Friends