Remember watching the first Ghost Rider movie and thinking, 'This might be the worst comic book adaptation in move history"? The Spirit of Vengeance will change your previous opinion.
Nicolas Cage sets new lows as he resumes his role of Johnny Blaze (AKA The Ghost Rider). And his phoned-in performance is what we've come to know and expect out of Cage: stiff and bordering on insanity.
This new film retains it's namesake character but changes everything else. New setting (now in Eastern Europe as Blaze is trying to run away from his demons). New damsel in distress. New villains (even cheezier than those in the first film). They even re-wrote history inserting a new character (Roarke - played by Ciarán Hinds) as the devil who made a deal with Blaze and transformed him into The Ghost Rider. In the first movie that role was fulfilled by Peter Fonda as the character Mephistopheles.
The sad part of of Spirit of Vengeance is that the rest of the cast is far more entertaining than the central character. Riordan as the son of the devil and Placido as his mother trying to save him from evil both turn in more compelling performances than Cage. Elba's character Moreau (a drunken warrior monk) is infinitely more interesting than The Ghost Rider. In fact, the first few minutes of the film featuring Moreau and the boy/mother escaping a handful of assassins after an attack at a monastery hold promise that this might actually be an enjoyable movie.
But our hopes of a good film are trampled as soon as The Ghost Rider's animated introduction is splashed across the screen. What we're left with is overblown special effects, CGI that dances between spectacular and shoddy, a frantic story line, and Cage's throwaway one liners. Toss in Cage's typical performance alternating from manic to stoic, and we're left with an abysmal movie that makes it's predecessor look like an Oscar worthy work of genius. Not an easy task considering the first Ghost Rider movie was an utter pile of trash.
Showing posts with label Rated PG-13. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rated PG-13. Show all posts
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The Vow
If you've seen the preview, you know the story. And not just part of it - but almost the entirety. A young couple suffer a severe tragedy in which the wife loses the previous five years of her memory. That memory loss includes any recollection of the courtship with and marriage to her husband. The husband spends the rest of the movie trying to woo her and remind her of their relationship. It's basically the same plot as Chuck's series finale - without the geeky humor and spy vs spy action.
But what's different from that Nerd Herding TV show is that The Vow is loosely based on a try story.
The rest of this review is laden with plot spoilers - which I don't feel bad about as the preview itself is a two minute plot spoiler.
Rachel McAdams plays Paige, the free spirited Artist inflicted with amnesia. Not only has she forgotten everything about her husband and the love they shared, but she doesn't remember anything about her current work and her time in art school. When she emerges from a coma, the last thing she remembers is being a law student engaged to another man.
Her parents (Jessica Lange & Sam Neill) are manipulative and selfish. Her real husband, Leo (Channing Tatum) is heartbroken. And half of the movie is a war between the factions of husband and parents - neither like the other and both think they have Paige's best interests in mind.
The other half of the movie is spent watching Leo's displays of devotion - all of which are fruitless.
Your opinion of this movie will vary depending on your outlook on life. Bekah found the film to be hopelessly romantic and inspiring, but that could be because most women want someone to love them as deeply as Leo loved Paige. That's why stories like Twilight are successful. I thought The Vow was wholly depressing. That could be because his repeated failed attempts remind guys of how they've previously failed in our own love stories. In The Vow, Leo kept doing all the right things and none of it worked.
By the end of the movie Paige and Leo may be heading to a restaurant for a meal together, but they're divorced. Leo is still hurt from his loss and unrequited love, and Paige is trying out art school again while trying to rediscover herself. The happy ending is only provided in the afterword. I'm not bummed that Paige never regained her memory. That would be taking too much creative license over the true events. But I am disappointed that the romance was not reignited during the film.
I'm not saying this is a bad movie. It was just OK. McAdams and Tatum are both decent in their romantic roles (although I don't buy Tatum as a hipster professional musician and recording studio engineer). Sam Neill is at his best when he plays characters that we're not supposed to trust. And I appreciated some of the more intelligent music references like the story of Thom Yorke turned into a motivational speech - which in my opinion was the best scene in the movie. Second best part? Hearing Pictures of You by The Cure during the closing credits.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
There was an extended preview for Extremely Loud before The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and through the whole 3 minute clip I kept thinking, "This kid is on the Autism Spectrum." I got my phone out and quickly texted my wife: "We must see this movie." (don't worry, the movie hadn't started yet so I wasn't one of those movie goers)
Extremely Loud follows Oskar (Thomas Horn), a precocious ten year old New Yorker, as he tries to make sense of losing his father in the World Trade Center attacks - an event which Oskar repeatedly refers to as "the worst day."
Oskar is abnormally intelligent; possesses a legion of phobias; has an obsession with facts, numbers, and maps; has a foul mouth; speaks his mind without weighing the possible impact of his words; employs self stimulating routines; and has several other peculiar habits.
In his grieving, Oskar finds a key and thinks it's a clue to a quest that his father left for him to explorer and dicsover New York's lost sixth borough. His self imposed search to find the lock that the key unlocks is an attempt to find order in the disorder of life and make sense of an inexplicable tragedy. In it he touches the lives of many people - most of them strangers.
We also see the struggles of parenting a unique child. We see Oskar's dad (Tom Hanks) step into his child's world. We see Oskar's mom (Sandra Bullock) care for her son while coping with her own loss. You see the heartbreak and the joy of raising a kid that is just a step out of sync with society.
As the movie started, I couldn't help but laugh (perhaps inappropriately) at Oskar's eccentricities. It's a somber film and you should feel sorry for this kid that learned of his father's death through a series of six answering machine messages and TV news reports. But I couldn't help but chuckle as he counts the number of lies he tells, or sorts through the essentials he needs to pack to take on his search, or compulsively shakes a tambourine to find courage to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I laughed because it was like watching my son on that big screen. It was a glimpse into my son's inner psyche.
At last the moment of justification came. Oskar is interviewing (interrogating) strangers to find who knew his dad and recognizes the key. He explains to the first stranger, "People tell me I'm very odd all the time. I got tested once to see if I had Asperger's disease. Dad said it's for people who are smarter than everybody else but can't run straight. The tests weren't definitive."
But Bekah and I both recognized the signs of ASD. Oskar is just quirky enough to be described as an aspie child with or with out an official diagnosis explained in the script. And the oddities of being a kid with Aspergers was expertly portrayed by Horn.
But of course the movie isn't all about Oskar's disorder. But it does help explain why and how Oskar executes his search for the missing lock. It is this understanding that may be lost on many movie goers. It is a frame of reference that helps audiences understand that Oskar is not a normal child.
If you want to see what life is like for parents like Bekah and me or thousands of other parents whose kids are on the Autism spectrum, go see Extremely Loud. If you are the parent of a kid on the spectrum, this is a must see film. And if you're just looking for a good film, this movie packs a well composed script, a gut wrenching story, and believable portrayal of dealing with loss.
Extremely Loud follows Oskar (Thomas Horn), a precocious ten year old New Yorker, as he tries to make sense of losing his father in the World Trade Center attacks - an event which Oskar repeatedly refers to as "the worst day."
Oskar is abnormally intelligent; possesses a legion of phobias; has an obsession with facts, numbers, and maps; has a foul mouth; speaks his mind without weighing the possible impact of his words; employs self stimulating routines; and has several other peculiar habits.
In his grieving, Oskar finds a key and thinks it's a clue to a quest that his father left for him to explorer and dicsover New York's lost sixth borough. His self imposed search to find the lock that the key unlocks is an attempt to find order in the disorder of life and make sense of an inexplicable tragedy. In it he touches the lives of many people - most of them strangers.
We also see the struggles of parenting a unique child. We see Oskar's dad (Tom Hanks) step into his child's world. We see Oskar's mom (Sandra Bullock) care for her son while coping with her own loss. You see the heartbreak and the joy of raising a kid that is just a step out of sync with society.
As the movie started, I couldn't help but laugh (perhaps inappropriately) at Oskar's eccentricities. It's a somber film and you should feel sorry for this kid that learned of his father's death through a series of six answering machine messages and TV news reports. But I couldn't help but chuckle as he counts the number of lies he tells, or sorts through the essentials he needs to pack to take on his search, or compulsively shakes a tambourine to find courage to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. I laughed because it was like watching my son on that big screen. It was a glimpse into my son's inner psyche.
At last the moment of justification came. Oskar is interviewing (interrogating) strangers to find who knew his dad and recognizes the key. He explains to the first stranger, "People tell me I'm very odd all the time. I got tested once to see if I had Asperger's disease. Dad said it's for people who are smarter than everybody else but can't run straight. The tests weren't definitive."
But Bekah and I both recognized the signs of ASD. Oskar is just quirky enough to be described as an aspie child with or with out an official diagnosis explained in the script. And the oddities of being a kid with Aspergers was expertly portrayed by Horn.
But of course the movie isn't all about Oskar's disorder. But it does help explain why and how Oskar executes his search for the missing lock. It is this understanding that may be lost on many movie goers. It is a frame of reference that helps audiences understand that Oskar is not a normal child.
If you want to see what life is like for parents like Bekah and me or thousands of other parents whose kids are on the Autism spectrum, go see Extremely Loud. If you are the parent of a kid on the spectrum, this is a must see film. And if you're just looking for a good film, this movie packs a well composed script, a gut wrenching story, and believable portrayal of dealing with loss.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Contagion
What better way is there to wrap up the summer movie season than a film about a contagious disease that decimates our home planet's population? Am I right?
Before we continue, let's make one thing clear. This is not a raging virus movie like Outbreak (1995). That movie was nothing more than a monster movie where the heroes spend all their time figuring out how to win. Where Outbreak was steeped in action, Contagion has more of an intellectual bent grounded more in reality. Rather than following an A + B = C formula (where A is the virus, B is the doctors, and C is a cure), Contagion follows the tragedy and human reaction to a massive epidemic. The media and medical personnel attempt to downplay the scope to prevent a swine flu kind of public panic. The interactions between those in-the-know and the lives of those around them. The tender moments between a protective father and his daughter. The Chinese government trying to hide their possible involvement in causing the outbreak. Political hostages. Government assumptions. Military reaction. Widespread fear. Riots. Looting. Truth vs disinformation.
This isn't an easy movie to watch as the subject matter is heavy and the imagery is gritty and occasionally unsettling. The film makers appear to be aware of this potential buzz kill and break up the dismal prospects of their characters with a few moments of levity (snow angels) and quick one-liners. Some of those one-liners work ("Blogging is not writing. It's just graffiti with punctuation.") and some don't ("Someone doesn't have to weaponize the bird flu. The birds are doing that.")
By no means is this a perfect movie. It is slow paced making it feel longer than its actual running time. And while the film makers made every attempt to keep the story as scientifically accurate as possible, they cast Demetri Martin as one of the scientists engineering the cure. I kept waiting for him to crack a dead-panned non sequitur joke - which was a bit of a distraction from the actual story.
My biggest complaint is that Contagion comes across as a long "you should always wash your hands" PSA. But that one squabble aside, Contagion is an great movie. Bekah enjoyed Contagion and recommends it - which says a lot because she doesn't often recommend movies. My father-in-law said it was a bit "sterile" but overall an excellent film. He also lauded the ending as being a fantastic piece of story-telling (though I will not spoil the ending here).
Maybe not, but Contagion fills that role and does it with near expert precision. Aside from a couple of flaws, this film has a lot working in its favor: an all-star ensemble cast, dynamic filming locales, a fantastic script, with a relevant and plausible story.
Let's start with that cast.
There are four divergent yet overlapping stories fleshing out Contagion's plot. First is Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon), whose wife (Gwyneth Paltrow) and stepson die from a mysterious illness. He's been exposed to the pathogen, and must cope with his loss while trying to protect his daughter and prevent her from becoming sick. Next are two CDC doctors (Laurence Fishburne and Kate Winslet) researching the effects and spread of the virus. Jude Law plays a smarmy blogger/journalist/conspiracy theorist capitalizing on the medical crisis, advertising a cure that doesn't work. And the final story arc involves a World Health Organization doctor (Marion Cotillard) sent to Hong Kong to investigate the source of the virus.
Before we continue, let's make one thing clear. This is not a raging virus movie like Outbreak (1995). That movie was nothing more than a monster movie where the heroes spend all their time figuring out how to win. Where Outbreak was steeped in action, Contagion has more of an intellectual bent grounded more in reality. Rather than following an A + B = C formula (where A is the virus, B is the doctors, and C is a cure), Contagion follows the tragedy and human reaction to a massive epidemic. The media and medical personnel attempt to downplay the scope to prevent a swine flu kind of public panic. The interactions between those in-the-know and the lives of those around them. The tender moments between a protective father and his daughter. The Chinese government trying to hide their possible involvement in causing the outbreak. Political hostages. Government assumptions. Military reaction. Widespread fear. Riots. Looting. Truth vs disinformation.
This isn't an easy movie to watch as the subject matter is heavy and the imagery is gritty and occasionally unsettling. The film makers appear to be aware of this potential buzz kill and break up the dismal prospects of their characters with a few moments of levity (snow angels) and quick one-liners. Some of those one-liners work ("Blogging is not writing. It's just graffiti with punctuation.") and some don't ("Someone doesn't have to weaponize the bird flu. The birds are doing that.")
By no means is this a perfect movie. It is slow paced making it feel longer than its actual running time. And while the film makers made every attempt to keep the story as scientifically accurate as possible, they cast Demetri Martin as one of the scientists engineering the cure. I kept waiting for him to crack a dead-panned non sequitur joke - which was a bit of a distraction from the actual story.
My biggest complaint is that Contagion comes across as a long "you should always wash your hands" PSA. But that one squabble aside, Contagion is an great movie. Bekah enjoyed Contagion and recommends it - which says a lot because she doesn't often recommend movies. My father-in-law said it was a bit "sterile" but overall an excellent film. He also lauded the ending as being a fantastic piece of story-telling (though I will not spoil the ending here).
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I never quite understood the original Planet of the Apes movies. Perhaps I was too young when I first watched them, so the cautionary tales against nuclear war my have been lost on me. Or perhaps the morality tales confronting the social issues of the 70s were too complex for the younger version of Nic. Either way, I never considered myself a fan of the movies.
However, the concept intrigued me. It compelled me to re-watch the original series. It made me excited at the idea of Tim Burton working his magic with the mythology surrounding the Apes, but was disappointed by how Burton mangled the ending of 2001's iteration.
With that in mind, I approached this new reboot with cautious optimism.
My fears were unwarranted. The new Apes delivers a satisfying story that pays homage to the original movies, yet stands as it's own entity.
This isn't a sequel and not exactly a prequel. Where Charlton Heston's 1968 Apes played into that generation's fear of a nuclear holocaust, the new Apes capitalizes on bio-engineering and genetic mutation.
The film's protagonist, Will Rodman (Franco) is a genetic neuroscientist researching a cure for Alzheimer's disease with personal interest in hopes to save his father (Lithgow) who is battling Alzheimer's.
After a workplace accident, Will reluctantly becomes the guardian of a baby chimp - the offspring of a genetically altered test subject.
If you've seen the previews - or possess any understanding of the themes of the Apes movies, you know that this baby grows up to be an intelligent chimpanzee.
There is much in this movie to praise. The motion capture work with Andy Serkis (the man who brought LOTR's Gollum to life) is extraordinary. Lithgow's performance is convincing and tragic. The screenwriters created apt reason to feel empathy for the apes and provided enough foreshadowing to understand their motivation. And while Franco's role as a groundbreaking scientist is dubious, the relationship between him and Caesar the chimp makes the movie worthwhile.
Pay attention to the names given to the apes - many of them honor characters, cast members, or crew of the original series. For example, Caesar was the baby chimp born at the end of Escape and the main ape in Conquest.
Icarus - the spaceship that delivered Charlton Heston to the original planet - makes a cameo through broadcast and print news (hinting at a possible sequel). And the Statue of Liberty makes a creative appearance.
Fans of the original movies will find other familiar bits. A few lines of dialog were borrowed from the originals including the notorious "damn dirty apes" quip.
While entertaining and wholly satisfactory, Rise is not a perfect movie. Aside from casting Franco as a scientist, I have a few other complaints about the film. There were a couple prominent clips from the preview that did not make the final cut - a major pet peeve of mine. And some of the action sequences were blurry and/or dizzying.
Minor squabbles aside, Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a fantastic way to end the weekend. I give it nine angry monkeys out of ten.
(and yes, I know, they're apes, not monkeys)
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Inception
We've seen the commercials with cityscape curling up into itself for months - hinting that Christopher Nolan is preparing a mind bending adventure for movie audiences. Until recent weeks the previews were vague, only teasing us that Nolan had a few tricks up is sleeve. The secretive strategy was worth the effort as Inception is the kind of movie that dares it's audience to lose themselves in a world of imagination.
Inception now joins the ranks of Fight Club, the first Matrix, and Nolan's own Memento as films to toy with your psyche. The brain boggling story telling is done with surgical precision. While there are flaws in the story those errors are inconsequential as Inception is easily one of the best movies I've seen in years and the kind of movie that reminds us of the magical allure that the theater experience once held.
The story opens up the opportunity to experience shared dreams, and for thieves to enact elaborate heists to steal information from the minds of other people inside the dreamscape. If this was the only psychological aspect of the movie, we'd be left with an unoriginal and wholly disappointing two and a half hours of film. Instead, Nolan weaves in the notion that shared dreams are commonplace and widely accepted as normal by the characters involved. He even gives the act of stealing intellectual property through dreams a name: extraction. The plot device that drives the real story (and lends the movie its name) is the possibility that ideas can be planted into the deepest recesses of a person's subconscious where the subject views the planted idea as one of their own design - an feat called inception.
The protagonist, Dominic Cobb (DiCaprio), is the brains behind the operation. Along for the ride is his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) whose primary job is to research Cobb's targets. The pair needs a new architect - a person who designs and builds the world experienced by dreamers. Dominic once was able to be an architect but now refuses to build dream worlds for reasons explained in the film. They hire and train a new architect (Ellen Page of Juno fame) to help work one final job given to them by a former target (Ken Watanabe).
The mission is plagued with complications of unexpected subconscious projections (including Cobb's dead wife), layers of unreal realms, and warped physics that defy every ounce of gravity we've come to enjoy in the real world.
The character work is portrayed with brilliance, the scenery is beautifully rendered, Nolan provides expert direction that exceeds either of his two Batman projects, and the action is both captivating and bewildering. The fight sequence with manipulated gravitational pulls is one of the greatest action scenes in the past 10 years of cinema.
Inception is two and a half hours of suspense. It is filled with mind blowing surrealism and jaw dropping special effects. This movie about dreams invites us to dream with with the characters on screen. Once the final credits begin to roll your mind will continue to ponder not only the psychological elements of the story, but also the unknown fate hinted in the final frame of film.
This is the single most satisfying film of the year. If Inception does not garner at least one Oscar, I will be surprised. This is the kind of movie more film makers should strive to create.
Inception now joins the ranks of Fight Club, the first Matrix, and Nolan's own Memento as films to toy with your psyche. The brain boggling story telling is done with surgical precision. While there are flaws in the story those errors are inconsequential as Inception is easily one of the best movies I've seen in years and the kind of movie that reminds us of the magical allure that the theater experience once held.
The story opens up the opportunity to experience shared dreams, and for thieves to enact elaborate heists to steal information from the minds of other people inside the dreamscape. If this was the only psychological aspect of the movie, we'd be left with an unoriginal and wholly disappointing two and a half hours of film. Instead, Nolan weaves in the notion that shared dreams are commonplace and widely accepted as normal by the characters involved. He even gives the act of stealing intellectual property through dreams a name: extraction. The plot device that drives the real story (and lends the movie its name) is the possibility that ideas can be planted into the deepest recesses of a person's subconscious where the subject views the planted idea as one of their own design - an feat called inception.
The protagonist, Dominic Cobb (DiCaprio), is the brains behind the operation. Along for the ride is his sidekick Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) whose primary job is to research Cobb's targets. The pair needs a new architect - a person who designs and builds the world experienced by dreamers. Dominic once was able to be an architect but now refuses to build dream worlds for reasons explained in the film. They hire and train a new architect (Ellen Page of Juno fame) to help work one final job given to them by a former target (Ken Watanabe).
The mission is plagued with complications of unexpected subconscious projections (including Cobb's dead wife), layers of unreal realms, and warped physics that defy every ounce of gravity we've come to enjoy in the real world.
The character work is portrayed with brilliance, the scenery is beautifully rendered, Nolan provides expert direction that exceeds either of his two Batman projects, and the action is both captivating and bewildering. The fight sequence with manipulated gravitational pulls is one of the greatest action scenes in the past 10 years of cinema.
Inception is two and a half hours of suspense. It is filled with mind blowing surrealism and jaw dropping special effects. This movie about dreams invites us to dream with with the characters on screen. Once the final credits begin to roll your mind will continue to ponder not only the psychological elements of the story, but also the unknown fate hinted in the final frame of film.
This is the single most satisfying film of the year. If Inception does not garner at least one Oscar, I will be surprised. This is the kind of movie more film makers should strive to create.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Date Night
Meet Phil and Claire. Boring people with busy lives and eccentric offspring. They’re looking for a way to spice up they’re marriage. So they do what any other couple would do: seek therapy.
However, Phil (Steve Carell) and Claire (Tina Fey) have a different idea of what constitutes therapy: running from dirty cops and hitmen while bringing down a mob boss and a crooked politician. Who needs counseling when your life is in peril?
This movie would fail if it's only redeeming qualities were the wild stunts. The couple’s excape from central Park is peppered with humor, but it’s not believable. The chase sequence featuring Carrell crawling between the drivers seats of two cars welded together is beautifully shot - filled with suspense and witty dialog, but the whole thing reeks of improbability. The awkward dancing in the gentleman’s club leading to the ultimate end of the Foster’s adventure will make you laugh (or blush) yet it is so far beyond unlikely to be plausible in anyone’s imagination.
Yet this mash up of a romantic comedy and action thriller succeeds. I was amused and entertained. Date Night is a great movie for a date night.
What makes this movie work is the relationship between Phil and Claire. They’re normal people with an imperfect marriage and spastic children. They could be any of us. Their predictable dinner dates are much like the date nights of most married Americans. Their conversations (while being slightly funnier than the typical human) are natural and wholly believable as conversations that transpire between two married individuals. They react to stress like anyone else. And the many dangers they endure throughout the movie are not remedies, they’re reminders. This isn’t a movie about how Phil and Claire fix their marriage, it’s about how much Phil and Claire love each other. Whatever (hypothetically) happens after the final scene, they will still be boring people with busy lives and eccentric offspring. Yet they are busy and boring people in love.
However, Phil (Steve Carell) and Claire (Tina Fey) have a different idea of what constitutes therapy: running from dirty cops and hitmen while bringing down a mob boss and a crooked politician. Who needs counseling when your life is in peril?
This movie would fail if it's only redeeming qualities were the wild stunts. The couple’s excape from central Park is peppered with humor, but it’s not believable. The chase sequence featuring Carrell crawling between the drivers seats of two cars welded together is beautifully shot - filled with suspense and witty dialog, but the whole thing reeks of improbability. The awkward dancing in the gentleman’s club leading to the ultimate end of the Foster’s adventure will make you laugh (or blush) yet it is so far beyond unlikely to be plausible in anyone’s imagination.
Yet this mash up of a romantic comedy and action thriller succeeds. I was amused and entertained. Date Night is a great movie for a date night.
What makes this movie work is the relationship between Phil and Claire. They’re normal people with an imperfect marriage and spastic children. They could be any of us. Their predictable dinner dates are much like the date nights of most married Americans. Their conversations (while being slightly funnier than the typical human) are natural and wholly believable as conversations that transpire between two married individuals. They react to stress like anyone else. And the many dangers they endure throughout the movie are not remedies, they’re reminders. This isn’t a movie about how Phil and Claire fix their marriage, it’s about how much Phil and Claire love each other. Whatever (hypothetically) happens after the final scene, they will still be boring people with busy lives and eccentric offspring. Yet they are busy and boring people in love.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Forbidden Kingdom
I like martial arts movies. Wait, scratch that... I like good martial arts movies. Granted, the word "good" is highly subjective and what one individual describes as good, another might see a steaming pile of cow turds.
In the case of The Forbidden Kingdom, I'm leaning more toward the steaming pile of poo. But at least it's shiny. Jackie Chan and Jet Li are both masters at what they do, and in Forbidden Kingdom it looks like they are having the fun they've spent their careers trying to achieve. Chan re-assumes his Drunken Master style, and Li carries a devious silence like one who possesses a secret knowledge. The fighting choreography is on par with what their respective fans have come to expect. The scenes where the two icons of Americanized Kung Fu argue over how to teach their arts to a hapless teen are priceless. However, the movie itself is as forgettable as... well... I don't remember.
The story follows a clumsy American teenager - fanatically obsessed with kung fu movies - who discovers an inner power and learns to kick butt with some epic fighting skills. It's like the Karate Kid without Mr. Miyagi. (Ironically, Chan is taking the roll of Mr. Miyagi in the upcoming Karate Kid remake.)
The teen (played by Michael Angarano) is mystically transported to an ancient and scenic world filled with magic and pseudo-Chinese mythology. He is the assumed fulfilment of a prophesy set to restore the Monkey King. Yet all he wants to do is go home (even though he is a picked on loser there... but he's got a crush on some girl so it balances out).
The finished film is a convoluted plot with some fantastic fight scenes, utter predictability, and a thick layer of cheese. It's good enough to watch once. But only once. After that it's a slightly stale pile of shiny cow dung.
In the case of The Forbidden Kingdom, I'm leaning more toward the steaming pile of poo. But at least it's shiny. Jackie Chan and Jet Li are both masters at what they do, and in Forbidden Kingdom it looks like they are having the fun they've spent their careers trying to achieve. Chan re-assumes his Drunken Master style, and Li carries a devious silence like one who possesses a secret knowledge. The fighting choreography is on par with what their respective fans have come to expect. The scenes where the two icons of Americanized Kung Fu argue over how to teach their arts to a hapless teen are priceless. However, the movie itself is as forgettable as... well... I don't remember.
The story follows a clumsy American teenager - fanatically obsessed with kung fu movies - who discovers an inner power and learns to kick butt with some epic fighting skills. It's like the Karate Kid without Mr. Miyagi. (Ironically, Chan is taking the roll of Mr. Miyagi in the upcoming Karate Kid remake.)
The teen (played by Michael Angarano) is mystically transported to an ancient and scenic world filled with magic and pseudo-Chinese mythology. He is the assumed fulfilment of a prophesy set to restore the Monkey King. Yet all he wants to do is go home (even though he is a picked on loser there... but he's got a crush on some girl so it balances out).
The finished film is a convoluted plot with some fantastic fight scenes, utter predictability, and a thick layer of cheese. It's good enough to watch once. But only once. After that it's a slightly stale pile of shiny cow dung.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Soloist
First, start with an excellent premise from a talented writer. LA journalist Nathaniel Ayers befriends a talented homeless musician who happens to be a schizophrenic Julliard dropout.
Then take two of the most brilliant actors in modern cinema and plug them into the biographical roles. Jamie Foxx as Steve Lopez - the homeless musical savant, and Robert Downey Jr as the writer Ayers.
Finally, use cinematography to contrast the harsh streets of Los Angeles with delicate concert halls; and balance the chaotic sounds of an urban jungle with the soothing sounds of classical music. This audible/visual disparity serves as a creative attempt to make the audience feel like they are battling the symptoms of schizophrenia.
10 points for effort. 2 points for execution. This movie looked promising and I was eager to see it. Downey and Foxx both contributed high caliber performances. The story was poignant and stunning. Yet, I was completely underwhelmed.
The Soloist suffered from slow pacing (exacerbated by the long stretches of kaleidoscopic visuals set to the lulling score of cello and violin) and uneven directing. It was a dismal disappointment, but it shouldn't have been. It tried too hard to be A Beautiful Mind, when straight-forward story telling would have spawned a better film. The movie focused too much on the music rather than the music makers.
Please don't misinterpret that last sentence. Classical music is not the reason The Soloist is a dreary and plodding movie. Several other movies have used classical music with more compelling results. Mental illness is not the problem, nor is the realistic portrayal of homelessness.
The problem with The Soloist is that it is trying to do too much. It tried to mimic the devices of other mental illness based movies. It tried to unpack the problems healthy and grounded individuals have relating to the mentally ill. It tried to highlight the trials of the homeless. It tried to show how an act of selflessness can change the course of a person's life. In attempting so much, it falters on every purpose.
I give it two half stars out of a possible five half stars.
(Disclosure: I was tired when I watched The Soloist. Some of my complaints about pacing could be a result of my sleepiness.)
Then take two of the most brilliant actors in modern cinema and plug them into the biographical roles. Jamie Foxx as Steve Lopez - the homeless musical savant, and Robert Downey Jr as the writer Ayers.
Finally, use cinematography to contrast the harsh streets of Los Angeles with delicate concert halls; and balance the chaotic sounds of an urban jungle with the soothing sounds of classical music. This audible/visual disparity serves as a creative attempt to make the audience feel like they are battling the symptoms of schizophrenia.
10 points for effort. 2 points for execution. This movie looked promising and I was eager to see it. Downey and Foxx both contributed high caliber performances. The story was poignant and stunning. Yet, I was completely underwhelmed.
The Soloist suffered from slow pacing (exacerbated by the long stretches of kaleidoscopic visuals set to the lulling score of cello and violin) and uneven directing. It was a dismal disappointment, but it shouldn't have been. It tried too hard to be A Beautiful Mind, when straight-forward story telling would have spawned a better film. The movie focused too much on the music rather than the music makers.
Please don't misinterpret that last sentence. Classical music is not the reason The Soloist is a dreary and plodding movie. Several other movies have used classical music with more compelling results. Mental illness is not the problem, nor is the realistic portrayal of homelessness.
The problem with The Soloist is that it is trying to do too much. It tried to mimic the devices of other mental illness based movies. It tried to unpack the problems healthy and grounded individuals have relating to the mentally ill. It tried to highlight the trials of the homeless. It tried to show how an act of selflessness can change the course of a person's life. In attempting so much, it falters on every purpose.
I give it two half stars out of a possible five half stars.
(Disclosure: I was tired when I watched The Soloist. Some of my complaints about pacing could be a result of my sleepiness.)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Carriers
What if?
That is the question superior survival movies ask. Not the “what’s going to happen,” “how did it happen,” or “how are they going to fix it.” Those are awful questions.
Enter Carriers. The world has been ravaged by a highly contagious and horrific disease. Most of the population is dead or dying. What if it was you? What would you do? How would you survive? Carriers only asks questions – it proposes no answers. Instead of answers, it gives you something to ponder.
Two brothers (Chris Pine and Lou Taylor Pucci) are driving cross country to return to the beach house they vacationed at as kids. Along for the ride are Pine’s girlfriend (Piper Perabo) and an upper class stranger (Emily VanCamp). They have rules to follow to prevent getting sick: avoid the infected, sanitize everything, etc. They also carry a healthy supply of bleach, duct tape, and bottled water.
Their strategy is flawed as the meet a father who is willing to do anything to save his daughter (Christopher Meloni), a sick doctor who has given up on finding a cure, a team of professionals with a surefire way to thwart infection, and a pair of armed old ladies.
The cause of the disease is never explained (nor is the cause needed), the fate of humanity and the surviving characters is never resolved, and there is no gratifying conclusion, just a somber journey through despair, isolation, and loneliness.
Graciously the melancholic temperament of the film is broken by bits of absurdity (Pine’s character driving a golf cart across abandoned fairways and sand traps with reckless abandon, and the hyper quarreling between the two brothers). Yet despite the humorous interruptions, you still can’t escape the morally challenging queries.
Would you kill to survive? Lie? Steal?
Would you drink yourself into oblivion?
Would you give up hope? Or would you persevere against insurmountable odds?
Would you be willing to abandon someone you love if you knew there was nothing you could do to save them? Would you force someone you love to make that decision?
What would you feel? Bitterness? Despondency?
Would you break the rules – even if you were the one who created the policy?
Again, the movie does not answer any of these questions. The actions and motives of the characters are never justified or rationalized. You will not walk away from watching this movie with a peaceful easy feeling. While a viral pandemic is the backbone of the plot, the real story is about making tough judgments in the face of ghastly circumstances.
My take: The characters are oversimplified archetypes – the jerk (Pine), the bullied genius ( Pucci), the rebellious girl (Perabo), the spoiled rich girl (VanCamp), and the noble father (Meloni). Despite the stereotypes, the acting is superb. The story is depressing, tainted with disturbing imagery, yet it is engaging and thought provoking.
Bekah’s take: What a depressing movie. It did spark some debate. Would I leave her on the side of the road if I found out she was sick and incurable? She swears she’d volunteer to stay behind and give us a better chance at survival. She wouldn’t recommend the movie.
Final word: A hat tip from me but a frown of scorn from Bekah. My recommendation – if you’re going to watch it be prepared, the movie will give you no reason to celebrate humanity and you might want to consume an entire gallon of ice cream (or some other comfort food) afterwords.
That is the question superior survival movies ask. Not the “what’s going to happen,” “how did it happen,” or “how are they going to fix it.” Those are awful questions.
Enter Carriers. The world has been ravaged by a highly contagious and horrific disease. Most of the population is dead or dying. What if it was you? What would you do? How would you survive? Carriers only asks questions – it proposes no answers. Instead of answers, it gives you something to ponder.
Two brothers (Chris Pine and Lou Taylor Pucci) are driving cross country to return to the beach house they vacationed at as kids. Along for the ride are Pine’s girlfriend (Piper Perabo) and an upper class stranger (Emily VanCamp). They have rules to follow to prevent getting sick: avoid the infected, sanitize everything, etc. They also carry a healthy supply of bleach, duct tape, and bottled water.
Their strategy is flawed as the meet a father who is willing to do anything to save his daughter (Christopher Meloni), a sick doctor who has given up on finding a cure, a team of professionals with a surefire way to thwart infection, and a pair of armed old ladies.
The cause of the disease is never explained (nor is the cause needed), the fate of humanity and the surviving characters is never resolved, and there is no gratifying conclusion, just a somber journey through despair, isolation, and loneliness.
Graciously the melancholic temperament of the film is broken by bits of absurdity (Pine’s character driving a golf cart across abandoned fairways and sand traps with reckless abandon, and the hyper quarreling between the two brothers). Yet despite the humorous interruptions, you still can’t escape the morally challenging queries.
Would you kill to survive? Lie? Steal?
Would you drink yourself into oblivion?
Would you give up hope? Or would you persevere against insurmountable odds?
Would you be willing to abandon someone you love if you knew there was nothing you could do to save them? Would you force someone you love to make that decision?
What would you feel? Bitterness? Despondency?
Would you break the rules – even if you were the one who created the policy?
Again, the movie does not answer any of these questions. The actions and motives of the characters are never justified or rationalized. You will not walk away from watching this movie with a peaceful easy feeling. While a viral pandemic is the backbone of the plot, the real story is about making tough judgments in the face of ghastly circumstances.
My take: The characters are oversimplified archetypes – the jerk (Pine), the bullied genius ( Pucci), the rebellious girl (Perabo), the spoiled rich girl (VanCamp), and the noble father (Meloni). Despite the stereotypes, the acting is superb. The story is depressing, tainted with disturbing imagery, yet it is engaging and thought provoking.
Bekah’s take: What a depressing movie. It did spark some debate. Would I leave her on the side of the road if I found out she was sick and incurable? She swears she’d volunteer to stay behind and give us a better chance at survival. She wouldn’t recommend the movie.
Final word: A hat tip from me but a frown of scorn from Bekah. My recommendation – if you’re going to watch it be prepared, the movie will give you no reason to celebrate humanity and you might want to consume an entire gallon of ice cream (or some other comfort food) afterwords.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
2012
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to set up a bank of TVs and simultaneously play a bunch of disaster flicks on them? The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, Armageddon, The Poseidon Adventure, Dante's Peak, and Hard Rain on a stack of six big screen TV's... I'm sure you haven't, but just in case you have wondered - Roland Emmerich was thinking of you.
Emmerich threw down the gauntlet when he blew up the White House in Independence Day. He is the man who set the standard for the modern era of the disaster genre. Yet, he's never quite lived up to the expectations he created. His movies have been more hype than substance (the quirky Godzilla and the plodding Day After Tomorrow are a couple of examples). Now with 2012 he aims to out do himself (and every other apocalyptic movie ever made) in both it's epic scale and epic duration.
Yes I said duration. It is a long movie. I'd recommend using the facilities immediately before the opening credits. Despite the long running time (158 minutes) Emmerich fills that time wisely. It's not the "when will this movie ever end" kind of Transformers 2 long... just the "my bladder is going to burst at any moment" kind. If it wasn't for the one liter of Mt Dew I chugged prior to the movie's beginning, I would have barely noticed the length.
The scenes of destruction (of which there were many) were evenly spaced - unlike some other movies that pack it all in to the fist 20 minutes of film (I'm talking about you The Core). While the dialog is not Oscar worthy, it's not a distraction. The conversations were practical (all though mildly predictable), punctuated with intentional humor, and a self-parodying outlook on the concept of cataclysmic events.
There are a couple of cheese ball moments (The Governator Schwarzenegger's cameo and an obnoxious fissure that splits a couple after the man mentions feeling like there is something separating them) but those clips are few and do not take away from the grandeur of the total and inescapable destruction that Emmerich celebrates for nearly an two hours and forty minutes.
As California sinks into the Pacific, a cruise ship and aircraft carrier are upended in tidal waves, buildings collapse, Yellowstone explodes, and Woody Harrelson goes crazy, you can't help but think how awesome it all looks. And while we know the story is completely implausible, we enjoy it. We know a puddle-jumper plane can't outrun (outfly?) a pyroclastic flow, but we sit on the edge of our seats to see it happen. We know that the earth will not open up to swallow the Vatican, but it makes compelling cinematography. And amidst the chaos is a plot. A decent one. And while some disaster movies center on one story, 2012 takes on a few. The strength of family, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Political and humanitarian ethics. Sacrifice and hope.
And with all that is splayed on the big screen during 2012, one of my favorite moments came after the movie was over (and I'm not talking about Adam Lambert's caterwauling during the closing credits). On my way out of the theater, I overheard two teen-aged girls talking.
"What sucks is like this is totally going to like happen like three days before Christmas," one of them said. (I wish I was joking.)
First of all... it's not. 2012 is a work of fiction - not a documentary. I won't get into the details, but the world will not end on 12/21/12. Astrophysicists, anthropologists, geologists, and many other scientific peoples have easily discounted the proposed meaning of Mayan prophesies. It is well documented. Google it. So I got a good laugh at the girls' academic naiveté, but I am also a bit puzzled by their arithmetic. The end of the Mayan long count calendar is December 12th of 2012. Last time I checked, Christmas falls on the 25th of December... every year. So, if I do my math correctly, 25 minus 21 is 4... not three. And the movie wasn't vague about the date. But I digress. The movie is well worth the price. Emmerich not only lives up to the expectations, but surpasses it. The sad misguided conversation of two girls who are prone to believe anything is just icing on the cake.
(And (Warning: plot spoiler) good news for dog lovers, a few corgis survive along with a king charles cavalier. Good news for alien lovers, so does District 9)
Emmerich threw down the gauntlet when he blew up the White House in Independence Day. He is the man who set the standard for the modern era of the disaster genre. Yet, he's never quite lived up to the expectations he created. His movies have been more hype than substance (the quirky Godzilla and the plodding Day After Tomorrow are a couple of examples). Now with 2012 he aims to out do himself (and every other apocalyptic movie ever made) in both it's epic scale and epic duration.
Yes I said duration. It is a long movie. I'd recommend using the facilities immediately before the opening credits. Despite the long running time (158 minutes) Emmerich fills that time wisely. It's not the "when will this movie ever end" kind of Transformers 2 long... just the "my bladder is going to burst at any moment" kind. If it wasn't for the one liter of Mt Dew I chugged prior to the movie's beginning, I would have barely noticed the length.
The scenes of destruction (of which there were many) were evenly spaced - unlike some other movies that pack it all in to the fist 20 minutes of film (I'm talking about you The Core). While the dialog is not Oscar worthy, it's not a distraction. The conversations were practical (all though mildly predictable), punctuated with intentional humor, and a self-parodying outlook on the concept of cataclysmic events.
There are a couple of cheese ball moments (The Governator Schwarzenegger's cameo and an obnoxious fissure that splits a couple after the man mentions feeling like there is something separating them) but those clips are few and do not take away from the grandeur of the total and inescapable destruction that Emmerich celebrates for nearly an two hours and forty minutes.
As California sinks into the Pacific, a cruise ship and aircraft carrier are upended in tidal waves, buildings collapse, Yellowstone explodes, and Woody Harrelson goes crazy, you can't help but think how awesome it all looks. And while we know the story is completely implausible, we enjoy it. We know a puddle-jumper plane can't outrun (outfly?) a pyroclastic flow, but we sit on the edge of our seats to see it happen. We know that the earth will not open up to swallow the Vatican, but it makes compelling cinematography. And amidst the chaos is a plot. A decent one. And while some disaster movies center on one story, 2012 takes on a few. The strength of family, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Political and humanitarian ethics. Sacrifice and hope.
And with all that is splayed on the big screen during 2012, one of my favorite moments came after the movie was over (and I'm not talking about Adam Lambert's caterwauling during the closing credits). On my way out of the theater, I overheard two teen-aged girls talking.
"What sucks is like this is totally going to like happen like three days before Christmas," one of them said. (I wish I was joking.)
First of all... it's not. 2012 is a work of fiction - not a documentary. I won't get into the details, but the world will not end on 12/21/12. Astrophysicists, anthropologists, geologists, and many other scientific peoples have easily discounted the proposed meaning of Mayan prophesies. It is well documented. Google it. So I got a good laugh at the girls' academic naiveté, but I am also a bit puzzled by their arithmetic. The end of the Mayan long count calendar is December 12th of 2012. Last time I checked, Christmas falls on the 25th of December... every year. So, if I do my math correctly, 25 minus 21 is 4... not three. And the movie wasn't vague about the date. But I digress. The movie is well worth the price. Emmerich not only lives up to the expectations, but surpasses it. The sad misguided conversation of two girls who are prone to believe anything is just icing on the cake.
(And (Warning: plot spoiler) good news for dog lovers, a few corgis survive along with a king charles cavalier. Good news for alien lovers, so does District 9)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)