As a finale to the movie series, the last Harry Potter is flat out perfect. After the brilliantly melancholy character piece that was The Deathly Hallows Part I, this film shifts gears into a thrilling climax that rivals The Return of the King. The battle scenes and action set pieces are as thrilling as a movie gets, and the final thrid includes so much humanity, so so much emotion, that I'm still tearing up just writing about it. How invested are we in the characters? I clapped and cheered when two of them kissed. Those who know me well no that's not something I do for movie characters . . . or anyone else.
No, comes the eternal Potter question: how well does it capture the book? That's the part that takes some time to digest. Die-hard fans are likely to have some mixed feelings about moments that are cut, changed, or given a shift in emphasis, much as they have throughout the series. As much as I love the Potter books (and I consider them geuine literary classics), I recognize that a book is a book and a movie is a movie. Perhaps the most fundamental rule of fillmaking is that you must be willing to sacrifice some of your favorite parts to preserve the emotional, cinematic flow of the film. That's why I still have issues with the extended cut of LOTR: The Two Towers: The new material at the end is great, but it offsets the glorious pace of that film's crescendo. A movie can take the time for a edtour the way a book can. So, some things may not be the way we want them. To repeat a reference I often use, the late, great filmmaker Anthony Minghella, who specialized in literary adaptations, once said "I can't capture the book you read. Only the one I read.". I suggest fans take a day or two to digest the differences, then see the film again.
And what a film it is. Director David Yates has established himself as one of the most talented directors of blockbusters, and, to me, his feature is one of the most exciting prospects in film. I can see him joining Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan as one of the greatest of the new wave of filmmakers. The superb cast continues their growth from the last two films. Among the most memorable are Ralph Fiennes, whose Voldemort may rank in my mind as the greatest fantasy villain in movie history, and, especially, Alan Rickman, who deserves to finally recieve an Academy Award nomination for his performance as Severus Snape. Riskman is so good here that Snape definiteively replaces Die Hard's Hans Gruber as his greatest place in movie history (and that is no simple feat).
The Potter franchise has been such a part of life for many of us, that it's end would bring tears even without the more tragic aspects of the story. As it is, this is a supremely emotional experience, highlighted, for me, by the triumphant and judicious use of John Williams original themes. The Potter cast and crew have created a film series for the ages, one which has no direct equivalent in cinema history, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Tom Felton and others have grown from cute child actors to mature adult thespians beofre our eyes. The knowledge that no more films are coming makes me tear up again. Harry Potter is more than a kids fatasy, or a dark thriller. It is a modern classic of Joseph Campellesque mythology that will leave it's mark on popular culture for (at least) decades to come. Years ago, before I had read the books, my dear friend tamsin Barlow told me that Harry Potter would make my life better, She was right.
Savor the last cinematic journey to Hogwarts. Magical journeys like this come along all too rarely. J.K. Rowling and those who have adapted her books to film have given us treaured memories that will last a lifetime, and ended the series with an unmitigated triumph.
NOTE: After the film has been open a few days, I will write a post analyzing the differences between book and film. But I'm not going to spoil anything now.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Larry Crowne *** Out of Four
Tom Hanks hasn't directed a film since 1996, when he gave us the slight but charming That Thing Thing You Do, and it's nice to see him make another attempt behind the camera (it's worth noting that during that time he has directed episodes of some of the mini-seres he has produced, such as From the Earth To The Moon and Band of Brothers). Hanks the writer/director is far removed from most of the other stars these days who move into the the directors chair: he doesn't make monumental epics like Kevin Costner or Mel Gibson. He doesn't make soul-searching dramas like George Clonney or Ben Affleck. He makes pseudo-romantic comedies that are best described as "cute". But that's not a bad thing. A lot of people out there are trying to make cute romantic comedies, but most of them are too crass, tooo cynical, too manufactured to actually be "cute". The films Hanks directs actually are.
Larry Crowne (Hanks) spent 20 years in the Navy right out of high school, and never went to college. He didn't need to. He had a perfectly good job working for a retail store called U-Mart, where he'd been employee of the month 8 times. But, as the film begins, he's called by the boss and told that U-Mart policy says no employee can be held back for advancement, but that he's reached the pinnacle of where he can go without a college education. So, in the kind of solution that's made America's economoy what it is today, he's fired. After unsuccessfully looking for a new job, Larry ends up enrolling in East Valley Community College, where he meets three people who change his life: free-spirited young Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), who changes his name to "Lance Corona", and makes him part of her scooter gang; Dr. Matsutani (George Takei), an pompous economics professor, and Merecedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), teacher of a speech class.
Of course there's a romantic plot with Larry and Mercedes. That much is implied by the fact that you have Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts in the same film. And the chemistry between them is really what makes the movie. I found myself feeling rather old as I kept thinking "Yeah, Tom and Julia, show the kids today what real movies stars are." Larry Crowne effectively demonstrates that one of the biggest reasons most of the romantic comedies today are so forgettable (or often worse) is that the Katherine Heiglels, Ashton Kutchers, Amanda Seyfrieds, Gerard Butlers, Catherine Bells, etc who star in them have nothing approaching the magnetism of actors like Hanks and Roberts. I found myself reminded that, even if it's contrived, lightweight or silly, a romantic comedy can be quite an enjoyable experience if the right charm is there. And charm is really what Larry Crowne has going for it. It has some laughs, but it's not a gut-buster. And not all comedies have to be. In fact, in many cases I'd much rather be engaged by the characters in a comedy and come out of it feeling good than get an overdose of belly laughs.
The most hit and miss aspect of the film is Talia and her gang. At one point, observing what she thinks is a romantic attraction between Larry and Talia, Mercedes quips "What is it with men and annoying free spirits?" Setting aide the irony of Julia Roberts, official miss fre spirit of the 1990s, saying this, I saw her point: Talia is alternately likable in her quirkiness, and infuriating in her pretentious naivete. At least the script seems somewhat aware of this. Another character I left with mixed feelings about was Bryan Cranston as Mercedes loutish husband. Cranston is a superb actor, and he's very good here, but I felt he deserved a character who was a little more than the one dimensional jerk he was playing. It's most likely in some part the Tom Hanks fan in me wanting to deflect blame from him, but I have a hard time not seeing the hand of co-screenwriter Nia Vardalos in some of these less fully realized characters. Don't get me wrong: I very much enjoyed Vardalos' signature film, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (a prime example of the "sometimes charming can be more satisfying than laugh out loud funny" theory). But her subqequent work has been very much downhill, and even in Greek Wedding I felt some of the characters had a one-dimesional streak, and that this was most true of the male characters. I suppose there are so many male screenwriters out there who can't write decent parts for women that it's okay to have a female screenwriter who doesn't know how to write believable men. Larry himself could be considered to be an exception to this, but while againt this could the Hanks fan in me talking, I feel the character so much screams "Tom Hanks" that I give him most of the credit. Where I suspect Vardalos does deserve some credit is for Robert's Mercedes.
One of the most pleasant surprises, for me, was how much I enjoyed Takei's performance. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but any film work Takei has done since his last appearance as Mr. Sulu has been nothing more than annoying self-parody, and his off-screen devotion to Shatner bashing has become rather tiresome. But here, Takei really shines. He's playing an extrememly pompous character, and he's certainly using the trademark George Takei voice to full comic advantage, but I laughed, and never felt like he was just playing himself or Sulu. He's the quintessential pompous college professor: a man who finds himself brilliant and fascinating, and, even when taking Larry under his wing and implying that he sees greatness in him, he considers the highest compliment to be "You have grasped my concepts like few others."
Larry Crowne isn't going to be remembered alongside the likes of Forrest Gump or Saving Private Ryan as one of the great films Hanks leaves as his cinematic legacy. He's not going to pick up a directing Oscar to go with his acting statues if this is the kind of film he keeps directing. But he doesn't have to. That Thing You Do has remained a favorite of many people for it's pleanatly goofy charm, and Larry Crowne works on the same leve. It does exactly what it's meant to: it provides a cute, charming, funny, pleasant little antidote to the overproduced masses of explosions which dominate the summer. Spending some time with Larry makes a pleasant evening that I'd gladly repeat.
Larry Crowne (Hanks) spent 20 years in the Navy right out of high school, and never went to college. He didn't need to. He had a perfectly good job working for a retail store called U-Mart, where he'd been employee of the month 8 times. But, as the film begins, he's called by the boss and told that U-Mart policy says no employee can be held back for advancement, but that he's reached the pinnacle of where he can go without a college education. So, in the kind of solution that's made America's economoy what it is today, he's fired. After unsuccessfully looking for a new job, Larry ends up enrolling in East Valley Community College, where he meets three people who change his life: free-spirited young Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), who changes his name to "Lance Corona", and makes him part of her scooter gang; Dr. Matsutani (George Takei), an pompous economics professor, and Merecedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), teacher of a speech class.
Of course there's a romantic plot with Larry and Mercedes. That much is implied by the fact that you have Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts in the same film. And the chemistry between them is really what makes the movie. I found myself feeling rather old as I kept thinking "Yeah, Tom and Julia, show the kids today what real movies stars are." Larry Crowne effectively demonstrates that one of the biggest reasons most of the romantic comedies today are so forgettable (or often worse) is that the Katherine Heiglels, Ashton Kutchers, Amanda Seyfrieds, Gerard Butlers, Catherine Bells, etc who star in them have nothing approaching the magnetism of actors like Hanks and Roberts. I found myself reminded that, even if it's contrived, lightweight or silly, a romantic comedy can be quite an enjoyable experience if the right charm is there. And charm is really what Larry Crowne has going for it. It has some laughs, but it's not a gut-buster. And not all comedies have to be. In fact, in many cases I'd much rather be engaged by the characters in a comedy and come out of it feeling good than get an overdose of belly laughs.
The most hit and miss aspect of the film is Talia and her gang. At one point, observing what she thinks is a romantic attraction between Larry and Talia, Mercedes quips "What is it with men and annoying free spirits?" Setting aide the irony of Julia Roberts, official miss fre spirit of the 1990s, saying this, I saw her point: Talia is alternately likable in her quirkiness, and infuriating in her pretentious naivete. At least the script seems somewhat aware of this. Another character I left with mixed feelings about was Bryan Cranston as Mercedes loutish husband. Cranston is a superb actor, and he's very good here, but I felt he deserved a character who was a little more than the one dimensional jerk he was playing. It's most likely in some part the Tom Hanks fan in me wanting to deflect blame from him, but I have a hard time not seeing the hand of co-screenwriter Nia Vardalos in some of these less fully realized characters. Don't get me wrong: I very much enjoyed Vardalos' signature film, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (a prime example of the "sometimes charming can be more satisfying than laugh out loud funny" theory). But her subqequent work has been very much downhill, and even in Greek Wedding I felt some of the characters had a one-dimesional streak, and that this was most true of the male characters. I suppose there are so many male screenwriters out there who can't write decent parts for women that it's okay to have a female screenwriter who doesn't know how to write believable men. Larry himself could be considered to be an exception to this, but while againt this could the Hanks fan in me talking, I feel the character so much screams "Tom Hanks" that I give him most of the credit. Where I suspect Vardalos does deserve some credit is for Robert's Mercedes.
One of the most pleasant surprises, for me, was how much I enjoyed Takei's performance. I'm a huge Star Trek fan, but any film work Takei has done since his last appearance as Mr. Sulu has been nothing more than annoying self-parody, and his off-screen devotion to Shatner bashing has become rather tiresome. But here, Takei really shines. He's playing an extrememly pompous character, and he's certainly using the trademark George Takei voice to full comic advantage, but I laughed, and never felt like he was just playing himself or Sulu. He's the quintessential pompous college professor: a man who finds himself brilliant and fascinating, and, even when taking Larry under his wing and implying that he sees greatness in him, he considers the highest compliment to be "You have grasped my concepts like few others."
Larry Crowne isn't going to be remembered alongside the likes of Forrest Gump or Saving Private Ryan as one of the great films Hanks leaves as his cinematic legacy. He's not going to pick up a directing Oscar to go with his acting statues if this is the kind of film he keeps directing. But he doesn't have to. That Thing You Do has remained a favorite of many people for it's pleanatly goofy charm, and Larry Crowne works on the same leve. It does exactly what it's meant to: it provides a cute, charming, funny, pleasant little antidote to the overproduced masses of explosions which dominate the summer. Spending some time with Larry makes a pleasant evening that I'd gladly repeat.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Green Lantern ** out of Four
While I can't say I'm a huge reader of comic books (despite considering myself a superhero geek), Green Lantern is one I've read, and very much enjoyed. Plus, he's the last of the Super Friends to get a live-action incarnation. And director Martin Campbell is, to me, one of Hollywood's more underrated talents, having given us the delightful Mask of Zorro, and by far the two best James Bond films of the past 30 years, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. So I was excited for the Green Lantern movie, despite the somewhat bad buzz.
But sometimes buzz is bad for a reason.
Green Lantern isn't awful, but it doesn't work, either as an adaptation of the source material, or as a stand-alone movie. It's so choppy as to be hard to follow, the characterizations are both shallow and over the top, the script is lacking in wit and intelligence, and there is no emotion to be found, despite a theme of will over fear that could easily resonate. Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a hotshot pilot who meets a dying alien named Abin Sur, who tells him that his 'power ring" has chosen him to join the Green Lantern corps, a group of intergalactic peace keepers. To do this, Jordan most overcome his long list of cliched character traits (he's selfish, doesn't commit to thing, is afraid of comparisons to the heroic father he barely knew, yadda yadda yadda) and earn the mantle of Green Lantern.
I've been amibivalent about Reynolds in the past, feeling he had a good sense of comic timing, but not convinced he was a strong actor who could carry a film. I still am not won over to the idea that he's a great actor by any means, but the failings of the film are not his fault. He gives it his all, and aquits himself nicely. Blake Lively, as love interest Carol Ferris, also does the best she can with the the material. The actor who is embarrased here is Peter Saarsgard, whose villain character is appalingly over the top even for a comic book film. Every time he's onscreen, the movie is almost unwatchable.
The action scenes are relatively fun, and the effects are probably pretty good if you seem them in a 2-D presentation. Director Campbell's penchant for making his bluescreen shots REALLY look like bluescreen shots hinders the work here, and it's as bad a post-production 3D conversion as I've seen. Strangely, the effects shots seem kind of flat, whereas the live-action dialogue sequences have that annoying "Viewmaster" effect, where the people stick out from the background but still have the depth of cardboard cutouts.
Still, all of these things could be forgiven if I were engaged in the material. If I were excited to fly with Green Lantern, if I felt stirrings of childlike excitement when he came to save the day. Because I love superheroes, there's a tiny element of that excitement, but only because of my pre-existing attachment to the character. it's hard for me to imagine the completely uninitiated falling in love with this the way the did with X-Men or Iron Man. This feels more like Daredevil. It wreaks of studio mandated cuts (I suspect editor Stuart Baird had more say over the final cut than director Campbell), and I found myself wondering whether an expanded directors cut might make more sense. it's not a good sign if you're familiar with the source material and still have no idea what's going on half the time.
All this said, I don't mean to imply that Green Lantern is a Michael Bay-style travesty. It's an acceptable diversion, the kind that's worth the price of admission at a dollar theater. While I have no particular intention to see it again in it's theatrical release, this isn't a Transformer 2 where I'd go to great lengths to avoid that. It's not a terrible film, just a very weak one. If you love superheroes, or see a lot of movies, it's probably worth a look. But if you're the type who is likely to only see two or three (or fewer) movies this summer, I would strongly recommend prioritizing films like Super 8 and X-Men: First Class, or even the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean far ahead of this one. It's the most forgettable superhero movie I've seen in a while. And, above all else, I judge this as a movie buff, not as a fan of Green Lantern. It's not that it strays so far far from the source material to offend the purist in me. It's that it fails badly enough as entertainment to disappoint the moviegoer in me.
But sometimes buzz is bad for a reason.
Green Lantern isn't awful, but it doesn't work, either as an adaptation of the source material, or as a stand-alone movie. It's so choppy as to be hard to follow, the characterizations are both shallow and over the top, the script is lacking in wit and intelligence, and there is no emotion to be found, despite a theme of will over fear that could easily resonate. Ryan Reynolds stars as Hal Jordan, a hotshot pilot who meets a dying alien named Abin Sur, who tells him that his 'power ring" has chosen him to join the Green Lantern corps, a group of intergalactic peace keepers. To do this, Jordan most overcome his long list of cliched character traits (he's selfish, doesn't commit to thing, is afraid of comparisons to the heroic father he barely knew, yadda yadda yadda) and earn the mantle of Green Lantern.
I've been amibivalent about Reynolds in the past, feeling he had a good sense of comic timing, but not convinced he was a strong actor who could carry a film. I still am not won over to the idea that he's a great actor by any means, but the failings of the film are not his fault. He gives it his all, and aquits himself nicely. Blake Lively, as love interest Carol Ferris, also does the best she can with the the material. The actor who is embarrased here is Peter Saarsgard, whose villain character is appalingly over the top even for a comic book film. Every time he's onscreen, the movie is almost unwatchable.
The action scenes are relatively fun, and the effects are probably pretty good if you seem them in a 2-D presentation. Director Campbell's penchant for making his bluescreen shots REALLY look like bluescreen shots hinders the work here, and it's as bad a post-production 3D conversion as I've seen. Strangely, the effects shots seem kind of flat, whereas the live-action dialogue sequences have that annoying "Viewmaster" effect, where the people stick out from the background but still have the depth of cardboard cutouts.
Still, all of these things could be forgiven if I were engaged in the material. If I were excited to fly with Green Lantern, if I felt stirrings of childlike excitement when he came to save the day. Because I love superheroes, there's a tiny element of that excitement, but only because of my pre-existing attachment to the character. it's hard for me to imagine the completely uninitiated falling in love with this the way the did with X-Men or Iron Man. This feels more like Daredevil. It wreaks of studio mandated cuts (I suspect editor Stuart Baird had more say over the final cut than director Campbell), and I found myself wondering whether an expanded directors cut might make more sense. it's not a good sign if you're familiar with the source material and still have no idea what's going on half the time.
All this said, I don't mean to imply that Green Lantern is a Michael Bay-style travesty. It's an acceptable diversion, the kind that's worth the price of admission at a dollar theater. While I have no particular intention to see it again in it's theatrical release, this isn't a Transformer 2 where I'd go to great lengths to avoid that. It's not a terrible film, just a very weak one. If you love superheroes, or see a lot of movies, it's probably worth a look. But if you're the type who is likely to only see two or three (or fewer) movies this summer, I would strongly recommend prioritizing films like Super 8 and X-Men: First Class, or even the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean far ahead of this one. It's the most forgettable superhero movie I've seen in a while. And, above all else, I judge this as a movie buff, not as a fan of Green Lantern. It's not that it strays so far far from the source material to offend the purist in me. It's that it fails badly enough as entertainment to disappoint the moviegoer in me.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Super 8 **** out of Four
In 1979, in the fictional town of Lillian, Ohio, a preteen boy named Joe Lamb is trying to cope with the recent death of his mother, who was killed in a factory accident. Much to the frustration of his father, the town’s deputy sheriff, Joe copes by immersing himself in a project lead by his best friend, Charles. That project is a horror film, shot on a SUPER 8 camera, and Charles has enlisted the help of not only Joe, but the rest of his misfit friends, and has surprised everyone by talking Alice Dainard, the prettiest girl in school, into playing the hero’s wife. On the night of the first big shoot, the would be filmmaker witness a train crash. Pretty soon, the town of Lillian is swarmed by military men, who won’t tell anybody what is going on.
Abrams and Spielberg may be the only two people in Hollywood who still know how to keep a secret, so I won’t spoil that by going into the plot too much further. But I will say that Super 8 lives up to every bit of hype and expectation surrounding it. This is a beautifully crafted, emotional, funny, scary, thrilling movie that enthralls an audience the ways Spielberg’s 80s classics did. And this is coming from someone who has been accused of “worshipping” Spielberg. Abrams has recreated the look and feel of vintage Spielberg expertly, down to the last detail. For a Spielberg fan, it’s an absolute joy to behold.
But Abrams somehow manages to do this without completely sacrificing his own unique voice as a filmmaker. It’s got the twists and turns of Lost, the personality of his Star Trek, and, like most Abrams projects, a leading lady who propels the whole thing. In this case, it’s young Elle Fanning, who, as Alice, projects such a genuine combination of childlike innocence and ahead of her years maturity, that you can’t take her eyes off of her whenever she’s on screen. The entire cast is terrific, especially Joel Courtney as Joe, and Riley Griffiths as Charles, but Fanning steals the movie. We become completely involved with these characters in a way we rarely do with adult Hollywood heroes. I found myself caring every bit as much about the budding romance between Alice and Joe as I did the more spectacular events of the film.
And it is spectacular. Abrams and Spielberg give us action/suspense scenes that evoke Spielberg’s classics Jaws, Jurassic Park, and E.T. They also come as close to the emotion of E.T. as any film of this type has done since then. Super 8 is the kind of film for which the cliché “You’’ll laugh, you’ll cry” was invented. If you’re a child of the 80s and complain that they don’t make movies the way they did when you were a kid, well, Abrams and Spielberg have done exactly that.And Michael Giacchino further establishes himself as one of the best film composers to come along in years. His score soars with emotions and build suspense in the vein of (of course) John Williams.
I also have to take a moment, as former amateur child filmmaker, to talk about how well rendered that aspect of the story is. It certainly added an extra level of enjoyment for me that I vividly remember the days of trying to make my own blockbusters with nothing but a camera, a few friends, and wildly overactive imagination.
It's worth mentioning, by way of warning (especially to parents) that Super 8 is rated PG-13 for a reason, namely the intensity, and for an E.T./Goonies like tendency to have the kids swear. Most audiences will get past this, but certainly some will not, and I'm absolving myself of any complaints.
It's worth mentioning, by way of warning (especially to parents) that Super 8 is rated PG-13 for a reason, namely the intensity, and for an E.T./Goonies like tendency to have the kids swear. Most audiences will get past this, but certainly some will not, and I'm absolving myself of any complaints.
P.S. Industry insiders are saying that Super 8 is "tracking soft", meaning marketing analysis shows it will open fairly small. I hope they're wrong about this, and also that word of mouth helps it hold on. But if you're one of those people who complains that trailers and ad campaigns show too much and give away the whole movie, you can don something about it: See Super 8 weekend. It's very rare for a Hollywood movie to leave so much to this imagination in it's advertising, and if Super 8 fails, that will be the end of that for the forseable future.
Friday, June 3, 2011
X-Men: First Class ***1/2 out of Four
The first two X-Men films were about as good as super hero movie get. Smart, funny, exciting, made with filmmaking prowess by director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects). When Singer took a break from the franchise to direct Superman Returns, Fox hired director Brett Ratner to direct X-Men: The Last Stand, and every aspect of the series took a downward turn in quality. Perhaps it was just because my expectations were lowered, but I found the follow-up, X-Men Origins: Wolverine to be a little more enjoyable, but it was still extremely problematic. The bloom was definitely off the rose for what had once been one of my favorite franchises.
When it was announced that Singer wanted to come back for the prequel, X-Men: First Class, I dared to hope that there might still be some life left in the X-Men. and, even though Singer had to relinquish the director's chair (due to other commitments) to Matthew Vaughn, it's still Singer's vision of the world and the characters in it that makes First Class a welcome return to form. It's not quite as good as the first two films, in my opinion. But it's a huge step back in the right direction. Interestingly, there are enough blatant contradictions of events and details from part 3 and 4 that it indicates those may now be considered apocryphal. Or, more, likely, those things will just never be addressed. Either way, this is a sequel to the first two movies that all but ignores what came after.
James McAvoy plays young Charles Xavier as a much more cocky, energetic character than the one we've come to know, but we certainly see the seeds of Patrick Stewart's iconic characterization. Michael Fassenbender's Magneto is almost the Wolverine of this movie: the dark, brooding anti-hero who seems uncertain of which side he's on. Jennifer Lawrence is certainly adds more layers to Mystique than Rebecca Romijn ever did, and her brother-sister relationship with Xavier, and her budding romance with Beast (Nicholas Hoult), both add depth and humanity to the film. It's also great fun to see Kevin Bacon as smarmy villain Sebastian Shaw.
Director Vaughn gives the film a "groovy" 1960s style reminiscent of a Sean Connery James Bond film, and has a very good handle on the suspense and action. The movie isn't tacky and garish like Brett Ratner's Last Stand. And it's not sloppy and half-baked like Gavin Hood's Wolverine. It's solidly crafted, quality summer entertainment, and for the first time in years I'm excited to see where X-Men goes next.
When it was announced that Singer wanted to come back for the prequel, X-Men: First Class, I dared to hope that there might still be some life left in the X-Men. and, even though Singer had to relinquish the director's chair (due to other commitments) to Matthew Vaughn, it's still Singer's vision of the world and the characters in it that makes First Class a welcome return to form. It's not quite as good as the first two films, in my opinion. But it's a huge step back in the right direction. Interestingly, there are enough blatant contradictions of events and details from part 3 and 4 that it indicates those may now be considered apocryphal. Or, more, likely, those things will just never be addressed. Either way, this is a sequel to the first two movies that all but ignores what came after.
James McAvoy plays young Charles Xavier as a much more cocky, energetic character than the one we've come to know, but we certainly see the seeds of Patrick Stewart's iconic characterization. Michael Fassenbender's Magneto is almost the Wolverine of this movie: the dark, brooding anti-hero who seems uncertain of which side he's on. Jennifer Lawrence is certainly adds more layers to Mystique than Rebecca Romijn ever did, and her brother-sister relationship with Xavier, and her budding romance with Beast (Nicholas Hoult), both add depth and humanity to the film. It's also great fun to see Kevin Bacon as smarmy villain Sebastian Shaw.
Director Vaughn gives the film a "groovy" 1960s style reminiscent of a Sean Connery James Bond film, and has a very good handle on the suspense and action. The movie isn't tacky and garish like Brett Ratner's Last Stand. And it's not sloppy and half-baked like Gavin Hood's Wolverine. It's solidly crafted, quality summer entertainment, and for the first time in years I'm excited to see where X-Men goes next.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Kung Fu Panda 2 **** Out of Four
While Dreamworks Animation certainly hasn't given us the consistent greatness that it's arch rival, Pixar, has, I feel that those who dismiss Dreamworks outright are mistaken. Tehy've made some high quality animated films (last year's How To Train Your Dragon was genuinely up there with some of the better Pixar films), and what they do is consistently better than most non-Pixar kids fare. And, this summer, Dreamworks gives us another one of their very best films, a triumphant adventure/comedy that's as appealing to adults as it is to kids.
The story essentially picks up where the first film left off, with our hero, Poh (a panda voiced by Jack Black), now having found his place in the world as the Dragon Warrior, protecting China alongside his heroes, the Furious Five. But China is threatened by a new evil: Lord Shen, a peacock (voiced by Gary Oldman) has harnessed the power of fireworks to create, well, a weapon of mass destruction. Poh and his cohorts must spring into action. At the same time, Poh, raised by a Goose, is beginning to wonder where he came from, and who he really is.
Kung Fu Panda 2 features some of the most spectacular and thrilling action scenes any movie has given us in a while. Notice I didn't throw in the modifier of "animated" film. This dwarfs most of what we're seeing in live-action, including the adventure films I've seen this summer, which generally have been a lot of fun. Of course, it's easy to do that in animation. There are no boundaries of safety, practicality, or gravity. But, while we see the benefits of that in most animated movies of today, those films typically lack the sense of intensity and peril that puts us on the edge of our seat in an Indiana Jones or James Bond movie. Here, the stakes are that high, and you're actually left with the the feeling that one of the Furious Five could lose their life in the proceedings.
That may seem like a liability to some. While my 4 to 6 year old niece and nephews, who saw the film with me, were fine, this could possibly be too intense for some little ones. In particular, one plot element is surprisingly disturbing:
SPOILER ALERT
When Shen first began experimenting with fireworks, a soothsayer prophesied that he would be defeated by a warrior of black and white. This lead Shen to go all Ten Commandments on the Pandas of China, leaving Poh orphaned and seemingly alone among his race. It's handled tastefully and without on-screen carnage, but, still, the idea of a panda holocaust is awfully intense for kids.
END OF SPOILER
One of the biggest strength of the film is, of course, its humor. If only Jack Black were still anywhere near this funny in his live-action films. I found myself laughing out loud routinely. And, amazingly, while the running gag is that Poh blows every big hero moment by doing something stupid or clumsy, that never undermines the dignity of the character, or the more dramatic moments in the film. And there are some very dramatic moments. Poh's adopted father is one of my favorite characters in animation, and I admit I shed a few tears over the relationship between them.
Kung Fu Panda 2 entertains and engages on every possible level. It's the best film of the summer so far, and trails on Robert Redford's criminally underrated The Conspirator on my list of best films of the year.
The story essentially picks up where the first film left off, with our hero, Poh (a panda voiced by Jack Black), now having found his place in the world as the Dragon Warrior, protecting China alongside his heroes, the Furious Five. But China is threatened by a new evil: Lord Shen, a peacock (voiced by Gary Oldman) has harnessed the power of fireworks to create, well, a weapon of mass destruction. Poh and his cohorts must spring into action. At the same time, Poh, raised by a Goose, is beginning to wonder where he came from, and who he really is.
Kung Fu Panda 2 features some of the most spectacular and thrilling action scenes any movie has given us in a while. Notice I didn't throw in the modifier of "animated" film. This dwarfs most of what we're seeing in live-action, including the adventure films I've seen this summer, which generally have been a lot of fun. Of course, it's easy to do that in animation. There are no boundaries of safety, practicality, or gravity. But, while we see the benefits of that in most animated movies of today, those films typically lack the sense of intensity and peril that puts us on the edge of our seat in an Indiana Jones or James Bond movie. Here, the stakes are that high, and you're actually left with the the feeling that one of the Furious Five could lose their life in the proceedings.
That may seem like a liability to some. While my 4 to 6 year old niece and nephews, who saw the film with me, were fine, this could possibly be too intense for some little ones. In particular, one plot element is surprisingly disturbing:
SPOILER ALERT
When Shen first began experimenting with fireworks, a soothsayer prophesied that he would be defeated by a warrior of black and white. This lead Shen to go all Ten Commandments on the Pandas of China, leaving Poh orphaned and seemingly alone among his race. It's handled tastefully and without on-screen carnage, but, still, the idea of a panda holocaust is awfully intense for kids.
END OF SPOILER
One of the biggest strength of the film is, of course, its humor. If only Jack Black were still anywhere near this funny in his live-action films. I found myself laughing out loud routinely. And, amazingly, while the running gag is that Poh blows every big hero moment by doing something stupid or clumsy, that never undermines the dignity of the character, or the more dramatic moments in the film. And there are some very dramatic moments. Poh's adopted father is one of my favorite characters in animation, and I admit I shed a few tears over the relationship between them.
Kung Fu Panda 2 entertains and engages on every possible level. It's the best film of the summer so far, and trails on Robert Redford's criminally underrated The Conspirator on my list of best films of the year.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides *** out of Four
The first Pirates of the Caribbean struck me as having potential to be one of the worst films ever made. Jerry Bruckheimer making a movie based on a theme park attraction? In a genre that hadn't really worked since the days of Errol Flynn? Starring Johnny Depp, who was talented but had made far more bad films than good ones in his career? (in fact, pre-Pirates I think Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood were the only films I had liked. No, I haven't seen Benny & Joon. Yes, I have seen Chocolat, and I really did not care for it) But the result was a delightful, witty adventure film, with Depp dazzling with a hilarious and completely unique performance.
The sequels were still fun on their level, but they suffered from all of the standard sequel problems. A "bigger is better" mentality that just meant throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks instead of telling a strong story. And they also had the problems inherent to shooting sequels back-to-back (much like the Back to the Future or Matrix sequels), namely that part 2 merely felt like a setup for part 3. And I personally felt it was a miss step to turn Pirates into a Lord of the Rings style epic trilogy. I thought Captain Jack Sparrow might be better suited stand alone adventures more in the vein of Indiana Jones or James Bond. That's the approach taken by the latest installment, On Stranger Tides, and I feel that, for the most part, it works.
On Stranger Tides picks the story of Sparrow and Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) searching for the Fountain of Youth, but drops the characters of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan, and all of the increasingly convoluted mythology surrounding them. This ends up leading to a more streamlined story that is fun and exciting. Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) has toned down the bombast of the last two chapters, and applied an overall lighter touch that, to me, comes closer to capturing the silly fun of the first movie. While I have to admit the sword fights aren't up there with the best in the earlier films, there are some great action sequences, and a particular chase with Sparrow running over the tops of carriages was, for me, worth the price of admission on it's own. A sequence wherein beautiful mermaids turnout to be quite deadly is also thrilling and inventive. I credit some of the smooth flow of these sequences to legendary film editor Michael Kahn, Oscar-winning editor of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Kahn is one of three credited editors (he is credited with "Additional Editing", but I felt like I saw his hand prints all over this one).
Penelope Cruz, as an old flame, now rival of Jack Sparrow, is a more than welcome addition to the cast. Her chemistry with Depp is terrific, and she adds a fire to the movie that is very entertaining. The new beautiful young couple, a missionary and a mermaid, are a poor substitute for Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, lacking in much a story, or individual personalities (I don't especially blame actors Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey, who are perfectly fine. The characters, especially his, are just dull). Kevin McNally continues to be fun as Gibbs, Sparrow's first mate, and Ian McShane is an enjoyably nasty Blackbeard. For the first half Geoffrey Rush seems a bit misused, as if the filmmakers don't know what to do with him, but this improves later on. But, as always, it's Depp's movie, and Jack Sparrow is still a delightful goofy and whimsical presence.
This is definitely a movie for fans of the franchise, and I count myself among those. It's not going to win over anybody new, and it may or may not bring back your enthusiasm if you're a bit burnt out on it. I was burnt out on Pirates, and I felt On Stranger Tides helped reinvigorate the franchise and remind me why I loved this so much in the first place. It's nothing new or innovative. It's part 4 in a franchise, after all. But I had a great time, and am already looking forward to seeing it again.
The sequels were still fun on their level, but they suffered from all of the standard sequel problems. A "bigger is better" mentality that just meant throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks instead of telling a strong story. And they also had the problems inherent to shooting sequels back-to-back (much like the Back to the Future or Matrix sequels), namely that part 2 merely felt like a setup for part 3. And I personally felt it was a miss step to turn Pirates into a Lord of the Rings style epic trilogy. I thought Captain Jack Sparrow might be better suited stand alone adventures more in the vein of Indiana Jones or James Bond. That's the approach taken by the latest installment, On Stranger Tides, and I feel that, for the most part, it works.
On Stranger Tides picks the story of Sparrow and Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) searching for the Fountain of Youth, but drops the characters of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan, and all of the increasingly convoluted mythology surrounding them. This ends up leading to a more streamlined story that is fun and exciting. Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) has toned down the bombast of the last two chapters, and applied an overall lighter touch that, to me, comes closer to capturing the silly fun of the first movie. While I have to admit the sword fights aren't up there with the best in the earlier films, there are some great action sequences, and a particular chase with Sparrow running over the tops of carriages was, for me, worth the price of admission on it's own. A sequence wherein beautiful mermaids turnout to be quite deadly is also thrilling and inventive. I credit some of the smooth flow of these sequences to legendary film editor Michael Kahn, Oscar-winning editor of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Kahn is one of three credited editors (he is credited with "Additional Editing", but I felt like I saw his hand prints all over this one).
Penelope Cruz, as an old flame, now rival of Jack Sparrow, is a more than welcome addition to the cast. Her chemistry with Depp is terrific, and she adds a fire to the movie that is very entertaining. The new beautiful young couple, a missionary and a mermaid, are a poor substitute for Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, lacking in much a story, or individual personalities (I don't especially blame actors Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey, who are perfectly fine. The characters, especially his, are just dull). Kevin McNally continues to be fun as Gibbs, Sparrow's first mate, and Ian McShane is an enjoyably nasty Blackbeard. For the first half Geoffrey Rush seems a bit misused, as if the filmmakers don't know what to do with him, but this improves later on. But, as always, it's Depp's movie, and Jack Sparrow is still a delightful goofy and whimsical presence.
This is definitely a movie for fans of the franchise, and I count myself among those. It's not going to win over anybody new, and it may or may not bring back your enthusiasm if you're a bit burnt out on it. I was burnt out on Pirates, and I felt On Stranger Tides helped reinvigorate the franchise and remind me why I loved this so much in the first place. It's nothing new or innovative. It's part 4 in a franchise, after all. But I had a great time, and am already looking forward to seeing it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)