Change Your Image
say_andy
Reviews
Serenity (2005)
The sci-fi movie that neither the Star Wars nor the Star Trek franchises have been able to make in years...
The big question when it comes to a film with such a cult following is if it's a fans-only film, or if it plays well to people unfamiliar with its Firefly past. To that, my answer can only be... damned if I know. I'm a fan. I know the Firefly history. Heck, I even knew the story between the last episode and the movie as told in the Serenity comic book. So if you're unfamiliar but are interested in seeing the movie, I really can't tell you if you'll follow it or not. But there are other reviews out there by unfamiliar parties that seem to suggest that you can.
What I can tell you is that Serenity is an action-packed, involving, fun, tense, and funny thrill ride that is the sci-fi movie that neither the Star Wars nor the Star Trek franchises have been able to make in years. You may have needed to see Firefly to completely understand the film, and to completely appreciate it, but you don't need to be a former fan to enjoy this movie. You don't need to be a Joss Whedon fan either. You need to be a space sci-fi fan, or looking for an action adventure flick. If you enjoy space movies, then I can't see how you wouldn't be entertained by this flick (unless you're really particular about special effects quality. With a budget of only $40 million, the film looks a little clunky at times, which for fans, only makes it feel more authentic and personal). In short, this is the best future/sci-fi/space movie at least since 1997's The Fifth Element. It's a refreshing take on the genre, with it's space western motif, that delivers the thrills and themes one has come to expect from the genre.
At the heart of the film is Nathan Fillion's Captain Malcolm Reynolds, who exhibits the roguish charms that Han Solo used to have before George Lucas digitally altered things so Guido shoots first. When thinking about how much the Star Wars prequels all sucked, I realised that they focused on the wrong character and had wished they'd have shown a young Han Solo before he wound up in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Cause who wouldn't want to see Han flying around in the old Falcon, smuggling things and avoiding the Empire? If that sounds like a movie you'd like to see, then watch Serenity, and you'll be pleased.
For fans, the movie is the culmination of the promise of those first 14 episodes, playing very much like the series finale it never got. There are fantastic fan moments, and many dangling plot threads from the series are resolved. The actors slip back into their characters pretty well, with only a few awkward fits in the translation to the big screen (personally, the relationship between Mal and Book didn't feel quite right to me. Also, Zoe and Wash don't get enough time to flesh out their relationship, mostly due to the breakneck pace of the film). The movie is a little glossier than the dust and dirt tendencies of the show, but makes up for it with the bigger scale that the silver screen allows. The movie gives a better sense of the size of the Serenity universe, and not having to deal with network broadcast standards allows the movie to show more of the brutality of the Reavers.
A big worry I had as a fan going into the film is that it would repeat much of what I already knew to acclimatise new viewers. I understood the necessity of opening things up for new viewers, but at the same time, didn't want to sit through re-hashed stories. Whedon is able to find a happy middle ground here, giving the necessary exposition in the beginning of the film, while showing all new moments at the same time. The focus of the movie is the story of River Tam (Summer Glau) and why the Alliance has been in pursuit of her since the Firefly pilot when her brother Simon (Sean Maher) rescued her from the Alliance. Fans of the show knew the story of Simon rescuing River, but until now, had never actually seen him do it. So, the movie shows fans what we'd never seen before while at the same time explaining the story to new viewers. Perfect. It also helps that the expositionary opening half of the film is the best filmed portion of the movie.
I thoroughly loved the movie, and was at the edge of my seat throughout. Once the film gets going, it doesn't stop going until the final moments. It's as tense and exciting a film as was this summer's War of the Worlds, only without the cop-out ending. My one complaint would be that as great as the film was, it would've been better as a five episode arch on the series. There are huge moments in the film that aren't given the time they deserve to truly observe the impact behind them (Whedon really packs the film full of story, so much so that the movie doesn't take any time for an opening credits sequence). Also, most of the characters besides Mal and River are under-featured, an unavoidable consequence of having such a large ensemble (still, I would've preferred a bit more funny out of Adam Baldwin's Jayne Cobb).
Still, I'll see it many more times after this, and am begging for a sequel. Or, better yet, a new TV series (just not on FOX). If you're a fan of Firefly, then I can't imagine you'd be anything but pleased by the movie. If you've never seen the show, but are interested in the movie, I'd suggest you go ahead and watch Serenity now, and if you like it, go back and discover Firefly.
Sports Night (1998)
"If you can't make money off of Sports Night, you should get out of the money-making business"
Had this whip-smart, 22 minute, "dramedy" set at a fictional sports network, depicting the lives of those who work at that network's flagship news anchor show (titled "Sports Night") aired on a network like HBO or Comedy Central, it might have had a chance. But, a network like ABC had no idea what to do with something mature and innovative like this. It doesn't have an immediate audience. On paper, it seems like a comedy for sports fans. But sports is only the window dressing for a work-place comedy that dishes observational humour on subjects ranging from relationships to politics.
Further troubling to vapid network executives is the fact that while Sports Night is a comedic show that is 22 minutes in length, it is hardly a sitcom by the traditional definition of the term. Sitcoms are usually formulaic offerings that puts familiar archetypes in wacky situations to allow the hilarity to ensue. Rarely do characters grow or evolve, besides the pesky children who grow necessarily, usually alienating the core audience by doing so. Sports Night is paced more like a TV drama, a drama that happens to be 22 minutes and funny. The humour is generally of the high-brow variety, derived from the rapid-fire dialogue that is the trademark of writer and series creator Aaron Sorkin. This isn't typical sitcom humour, but ABC really wanted it to be, evidenced by the horribly distracting laugh track used in the first few episodes and later (thankfully) abandoned.
Sorkin and his writing are the true stars of the series, but his words would be lifeless were it not for the outstanding performances turned in by the stellar cast. Peter Krause (who would later go on to shine in HBO's Six Feet Under) stars as anchor Casey McCall, a character loosely-based on former ESPN anchor, and former late night talk show host, Craig Kilborn. His co-anchor is Dan Rydell, played ably by Josh Charles (of Dead Poets Society fame). He's so good that you wonder where he's been all these years. Dan is my favourite character on the show. Sorkin favourite Joshua Malina (who also appeared in Sorkin's The American President, A Few Good Men and The West Wing) plays tech-geek Jeremy Goodwin, stealing many scenes and making me wish he did more on The West Wing. Desperate Housewives star Felcity Huffman plays show producer Dana Whitaker, Sabrina Lloyd (who I guess was on Sliders) is her assistant Natalie Hurley, and Benson himself, Robert Guillaume added the star power to the series as the boss, Isaac Jaffe (Guillaume had a stroke during the series, which in turn gave a stroke to his character).
It's sad that such a funny, intelligent and entertaining show couldn't last more than two seasons, but it's ultimately for the best. Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme (who was executive producer and directed many episodes) would go on to create The West Wing, which was a better showcase of his talent and quite possibly the finest drama the medium has ever produced. Plus, had there been a third season, Buena Vista probably wouldn't have released the whole series in one set, choosing instead to release season one, then never release another season again! I'm just happy to finally own these two seasons so I can re-live them to my heart's content.
Firefly (2002)
Who knows? Maybe the movie will do so well that someone will say "we should make a TV series based on this".
After watching the pilot episode, I wasn't sure if I'd like this series. The first half of the two-hour show was kind of dull and off-putting. The opening scene drops the viewer right in the middle of a war, with no set up or context. I actually had to go back on the DVD to make sure I hadn't accidentally skipped past an episode or a chapter. I understand the story-telling benefit of starting right in the middle of the action, but I think an establishing shot or subtitle may have been called for, given that this was the first scene anyone would see of a show they were deciding whether or not to pick up (as a network, and eventually, as a viewer). The rest of the episode works to explain the motivations and world of the show, along with introduce the cast of nine characters. Methinks nine characters in one pilot may have been a little overambitious, preventing the audience from truly connecting with any one of them enough to embrace the show. By the end of the episode, I started to ease in a bit and feel the Whedon in the dialogue, but wasn't convinced whether or not I liked the show. I can't say for sure whether or not I would have tuned in the next week were I have been watching when it aired.
However, once I got past the bumpy pilot episode (which, incidentally, was not the first episode aired by Fox), I managed to take in the show whole-heartedly without problem. For those who don't know, Firefly is a space western, set in a future timeline featuring frontier planets resembling the old west. The show focuses on the crew of the ship Serenity, a firefly calibre spacecraft that the crew uses to smuggle goods throughout the galaxy on behalf of whomever will pay them.
The two biggest reasons why the show works are creator/writer/sometimes-director Joss Whedon and series star Nathan Fillion. Whedon's imagination is such that a convoluted idea like I described above works as well as, say, a Californian former-valley girl teen who fights demons. The characters are fully realised and appealing in their own ways, and the dialogue is sharp and witty. Since it is in the future, Whedon is unable to use the pop culture references that litter his other two shows, and does fine without it.
Fillion stars as Serenity's Captain Malcolm Reynolds, and is easily the shining star of the ensemble cast. Without his charismatic leadership, the cast of quirky misfits that surround him wouldn't work. In fact, Reynolds is such a fantastic character that I have to wonder if Whedon made a mistake in making Firefly such a large ensemble, as the show may have been more successful with more focus on him. Not that the cast isn't good, as each character is enjoyable in its own right and is given a legitimate reason for their role on the ship and the show.
Particularly good amongst the others is Adam Baldwin as the ship's amoral muscle Jayne Cobb. Used alternately as menacing threat and blundering comic relief, Jayne manages to steal most scenes that he's in. Gina Torres plays the same tough chick she's played elsewhere, such as Alias and Angel, as Zoë Warren. Jewel Staite is adorable as the ship's mechanic Kaylee, and Brazilian Morena Baccarin is absolutely gorgeous as the ship's resident "companion" Inara Serra, who oozes sex appeal and has real chemistry with Reyolds. She also looks a lot like Ashley Judd. Rounding out the ensemble are Alan Tudyk as pilot Hoban "Wash" Washburn, Sean Maher as medic Dr. Simon Tam, Summer Glau as his sister River, and Ron Glass as Shepherd Book.
All in all, I found Firefly to be a highly entertaining show, and was a little sad when the episodes came to an end. The show was a perfect balance between self-contained episodes and multi-episode character archs. Each episode contained an adventure that began and ended within the 42 minutes of show time, but the characters themselves evolved and progressed each week, referencing the past episodes while moving forward with the current episode. The audience isn't strung along with never-ending cliffhangers, but at the same time are trusted to follow the ongoing developments in character development.
Fantastic Four (2005)
A big, dumb, action-adventure, special effects movie with hammy dialogue, a loose plot, and average acting. And... I really liked it.
I have a confession to make: I've enjoyed every comic book movie that I've gone to a theatre to see, other than the Batman-movie-that-shall-not-be-named. I loved the X-Men movies, the Spider-Man movies, Hulk, even Daredevil. I can't help it. They're my weak spot. Some people like spaghetti westerns, some people like teen slasher flicks, some people like gross out comedies. I like super hero movies, as long as they're based on super heroes that I grew up on (which is why I've yet to see Hellboy, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Constantine), and as long as they stay true to the essence of the characters. I can't help it. When I see my childhood up on the big screen, I completely mark out and lose all ability to form critical thought. After subsequent viewings, at home, I eventually gain it back. But when I see the characters and powers and comic book nods for the first time, I geek out.
How'd I do with this one? Well, Fantastic Four is a big, dumb, action-adventure, special effects movie with hammy dialogue, a loose plot, and average acting. And... I really liked it. I want to see it again. Go ahead, flame me if you want, I don't care. I had a good time watching it. I liked how they used their powers for different things. It felt like the comic book. Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm fought. Reed Richards was really smart with science, but a hopeless dork elsewhere. Susan Storm was protective of her little brother. Doctor Doom wanted to get that damn Richards, and he was from Latveria (or at least his family was). The Baxter Building was there, complete with Stan Lee as Willie freaking Lumpkin! Johnny Storm was brash and cocky, Sue was shy, Ben was lovable and gruff. Things blew up. The Thing said "It's Clobberin' Time", and Jessica Alba looked good (another personal weakness of mine). The action was big, as it needed to be. The Fantastic Four the comic was always on the grandest scale in the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man fought weird smaller guys, the FF fought Galactus and Prince Namor and hung out with the Silver Surfer. I was happy.
So, was it a good movie? I dunno. I really couldn't tell you that right now. I have no objectivity. Maybe after a few more viewings I could. All I can say right now is that I enjoyed it, and that there will be repeated viewings for me.
Serendipity (2001)
A clichéd romantic comedy that works in spite of itself
Serendipity is light and delightful, a romantic comedy that is both crowd-pleasing and cute, without being trite and simple. Sure, it has all the romantic comedy contrivances, and relies on a series of clichéd coincidences and well-worn shots of New York to get the audience to the satisfying ending. It by no means has re-invented the wheel here. Instead, it's just an above average wheel, one that you'll enjoy if you buy into the formula.
The main reason why this film works where other romantic comedies fail is the cast. John Cusack proves there is no movie he can't class up by his presence, being the guy that women find attractive and smart, while guys identify with. He's the everyman for the hipster crowd. Cusack's Jonathan Trager is a funny, self-deprecating, engaging lead whose charisma carries the film. The gorgeous Kate Beckinsale plays Sara Thomas, the object of Trager's affection, being the cute, funny hot girl that would make a guy gladly jump through all the crazy hoops she places in front of him for a shot at her affections. They are both affable leads with solid chemistry that clicks well enough and fast enough that the audience becomes reasonably invested in their separate pursuits of each other through the rest of the movie (as they spend most of the movie apart from one another).
Cusack's best friend Jeremy Piven plays the same best friend character he does in most of Cusack's movies, this time as Dean Kansky. As much chemistry as Cusack and Beckinsale manage in this movie, it can't help to match the chemistry Cusack and Piven have. It's their antics in the movie that cause Serendipity to rise above the otherwise average romantic comedy it should be, as they manage to be truly funny without resorting to the usual bumbling moron buddy tricks that lesser comedies fall back on. Adding to the mix is Eugene Levy, who steals every scene he's in as a Bloomington's Salesman who helps Trager and Kansky track down Sara.
Another reason this movie stands out for me is that the respective significant others for Cusack and Beckinsale in the movie are both perfectly good people who care for their partners. Too often in movies like this one, the significant others that keep the main couple apart are portrayed as unlikeable people, the women are mousey shrews or controlling bitches, and the men are complete jerks. This is designed to make the audience cheer harder for the main couple to eventually get together. Unfortunately, it ends up making the main characters look stupid. Why would these people choose such beasts to be their girlfriend/boyfriend/fiancée? Are they that blind? Not so with Serendipity, where Bridget Moynahan brings a sweetness and genuine concern to Trager's fiancée Halley Buchanen and John Corbett does the same with Thomas' fiancée Lars Hammond. Corbett does a great comedic job with Hammond, a new age musician in the Yanni mold, who is a little weird and a little preoccupied with his career, but still a loving boyfriend. It's not that their other loves aren't good people, it's just that they're not the right people.
I've watched this movie dozens of times now, and it only grows on me more each time. I still laugh out loud at many parts in the movie, and am always won over by the characters and the pursuit each time. In the hands of lesser performers, there's a good chance that it would be terrible. But it's not, it's simple and winning, even Molly Shannon is tolerable in it, playing a toned down version of the same character she always plays, this time as Sara's best friend Eve. If you're looking for a nice, warm romantic comedy, but aren't willing to accept the usual dumbed down offerings of the genre, than Serendipity is an excellent choice.
American Splendor (2003)
Brilliantly meta
American Splendor is part adaptation of the underground comic book of the same name (and the graphic novel Our Cancer Year), part biopic of the man who wrote the comics, Harvey Pekar. Which makes sense, because the comics are accounts of the life of Harvey Pekar, featuring Harvey Pekar as the main character interacting with the people in his life. In the comic, Pekar the character lives the life of Pekar the man, including the fact that Pekar the character writes a comic book about Pekar the man. Are you still with me? It's all delightfully meta, and reflected perfectly and brilliantly in the movie. The movie is both an adaptation of the comic and the story of the comic, featuring scenes from the comic in both movie and comic book form (as covers and panels from the comic interact with the narrative). Taking this thread even further, Paul Giamatti stars as the movie character of Harvey Pekar, sometimes highlighted by pictures of the comic character Harvey Pekar, while the film is narrated, both in live action shots and voice overs, by the actual Harvey Pekar. So Pekar is shown talking about the movie based on his comic book based on him. It is as unique and interesting as it sounds, and is pulled off spectacularly by the cast and directors Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini (each of whom play themselves filming the movie). The film gets even more sublime when telling of the time a play was made based on the comic book, showing Giamatti and co-star Hope Davis (playing Pekar's wife Joyce Brabner, co-author of Our Cancer Year) attending a play starring Donal Logue (The Tao of Steve) and Molly Shannon as Harvey Pekar and Joyce Brabner, then the sequence is later narrated by the actual Pekar, punctuated by lines from the comic book based on Harvey and Joyce's experience of seeing themselves in a play. The film goes even one step further with its meta theme ;in a particularly clever sequence that is too good to be spoiled here.
Beyond simply a gimmick, this makes the movie more than just an adaptation of the content of the comics, it also manages to adapt the spirit of the comics. If Harvey Pekar's comics are the stories of the everyday struggles in his life, then the Harvey Pekar movie must also be told through Pekar's eyes. It has to be self-referencing, because the comics are. Just imagine what the comic books about making the movie must be like.
As fantastic as this play on the reality of the film is, it doesn't make the film so quirky that it loses its focus as a story-telling device. This is the flaw of most quirky indie movies, that they're too clever by half and fall so in love with their tricks that they suck the heart out of their films, making their characters too eccentric to be identifiable as human beings. Pekar is an unusual man, to be sure, but his story is all about finding the extraordinary in the ordinary, and thus he must be presented as an extraordinarily ordinary guy. He must be a character the audience can fall for, empathise with, and cheer to succeed.
He is, and a large amount of the credit goes to star Paul Giamatti, who turns in a brilliant performance as Pekar in perhaps his best acting performance of his career. Giamatti's Pekar is gruff, slovenly, neurotic, and winning. Giamatti's vocal performance alone makes the role a stand out. In the hands of a lesser performer, this movie could have easily devolved into a depressing tale of a sad little man. Instead, it's surprisingly upbeat in the end, and Giamatti manages to engage the viewer throughout what is a fairly low-key movie.
I was truly impressed by this movie, finding it to be one of the freshest, most unique films I've seen in a while. It's as charming and pleasing as it is impressive. The gimmicks are fun and interesting without overwhelming the rest of the movie, and the acting and direction are top notch.
Hellboy (2004)
Hellboy provides fun and excitement in excess
I've never read any Hellboy, so I know nothing about the character as he was portrayed in the Dark Horse Comics that the movie is based on. The extent of my Hellboy knowledge going into this movie is that the character was created, written, and drawn by Mike Mignola. So I can't judge whether or not it was a good or loyal adaptation of the character, and thus will be judging it solely whether or not it works as a sci-fi action-adventure flick. The good news is that I'll be less likely to forgive a bad movie just because it pushes my fanboy buttons.
More good news is that I didn't need any fanboy button-pushing to enjoy this movie. It's a high energy, special effects heavy, big action, comic book movie. I'm not usually won over by special effects heavy movies, because I feel they use them as a crutch to cover up the fact that they don't have much to say as a movie. But, when done right, special effects can enhance a movie, providing the audience with a visceral, visual experience that is unlike most of what they'll see in movies. Hellboy is one such a movie, a vibrant and unique experience that's as exciting as it is fun. It's probably for the best that Selma Blair is the biggest name star in the movie, because I'm sure most of the budget went to effects, as there are few scenes in the film without some.
Thankfully, one area they avoided using special effects is with the Hellboy character itself, instead choosing to outfit Ron Perlman with makeup and costume to inhabit the big red guy. This works fantastically, as Hellboy manages to feel real in the film, despite his other-worldly appearance. He interacts with his environments, be they gloomy subways, the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, or a snowy Russian cemetery. Perlman does an excellent job filling Hellboy out, creating a character with enough gruff charisma to carry the film throughout. It's tough not to like the big guy, who fills the film with both humour and pathos, which is feat I don't believe CGI is ready to accomplish (if it ever will).
The film feels like a blend of Indiana Jones, Men In Black, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Ghostbusters, while managing to stake out some original material for itself. It's a truly fun adventure film that's easy to like due to the nature of the character. But, the film isn't without its flaws. The villains of the piece are fairly second rate, the dramatic portions of the film, particularly the love angle with Blair's pyrokinetic character Liz Sherman, is merely adequate, and some of the sub-plots go unaddressed. But, what you should be looking for in such a movie is excitement and fun, and Hellboy provides both in excess.
Greg the Bunny (2002)
It was also probably too original to survive on network TV
After watching the whole series on DVD, I realised that I'd only seen one episode of Greg the Bunny when it was originally aired on FOX (the final episode, it turns out). It must have left a good impression, since I decided that I wanted to own it as soon as I heard that it was coming out on DVD. The show was just too funny, too original to be ignored. It was also probably too original to survive on network TV. So sad.
I think that was the problem, the fact that it was on network TV. Had it been produced for a cable network, like Comedy Central, then I think it would still be going strong, stuffed somewhere between Crank Yankers and Chappelle's Show. Sure, they probably couldn't have cast Seth Green and Eugene Levy, but that wouldn't really have been much of a loss. It's not that those two aren't good in their parts, they are, Levy especially, but the stars of the show are the puppets. The humans serve as sounding boards and straight men, so it wouldn't have mattered who was cast as Jimmy and Gil Bender (I bet Sarah Silverman could still be cast, which is awesome because she rules).
Of the mainstay puppets, Greg is actually the least entertaining. However, that doesn't mean that the focus of the show was on the wrong character, sitcoms are usually most effective when the most normal of the show's characters are the lead, with the kooky ones playing off of the lead in small doses. This helps viewers relate and keeps the supporting characters fresh. Examples of this can be shown in Seinfeld, Frasier, all of Bob Newhart's shows, and Cheers. My favourite character on the show is Warren Demontague, a boozy, arrogant, overweight ape who plays Professor Ape on "Sweetknuckle Junction", the Sesame Street-esquire show within the show, who describes himself as "an actor first, a puppet second, and an ape third". His acerbic wit never failed to make me laugh. In referring to dogs, in one episode Warren said "What do humans see in these things, anyway? If I wanted someone to lick my face and poop on my lawn I'd get back together with Farrah Fawcett". That's South Park or Family Guy-type humour.
As great as Warren is, no puppet stole a scene like Tardy the Turtle. He was called Tardy cause he was slow, you see? It could also do with the fact that he was "slow". Having the courage to do something that un-PC for the sake of humour is what made this show great, but also why it could never work on network TV, even FOX. Pretty much any scene he was in, you wanted to hear Tardy say something funny (the kind of funny that you know you should feel bad about finding funny). And he always did.
Ultimately, it wasn't a perfect show. It's really low budget, and is all over the place in terms of direction and characterisation. Both are also problems that can be blamed on network interference. But it was funny as hell. It left me wishing there was more. I miss Warren, Tardy and Count Blah already. If you like the humour of the shows mentioned above, but have never seen Greg the Bunny, then I highly recommend renting this DVD. There are only 13 episodes (22 minutes each), so it could easily be digested within a normal rental period. If you have vague memories of finding it funny when it was on, I assure you that it is still funny, so you might want to go ahead and buy it.
Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero (1997)
It was nice to see a movie with Batman, Robin, Mr. Freeze, and Batgirl that didn't completely suck...
Released a year after the Batman-movie-that-shall-not-be-named, this movie was obviously conceived as a way to cash in on the attention from that movie. Which obviously backfired big-time, since that movie killed the franchise and everyone involved quickly disavowed any knowledge of it (including the audience). A sequel of sorts to the first animated Batman movie (Phantasm), this movie also serves as a bridge between the original Batman: The Animated Series and The New Batman Adventures, featuring Dick Grayson as Robin (he would go on to become Nightwing in the second series) and Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, along with the usual cast of characters: Batman, Commissioner Gordon, Alfred, Detective Bullock, etc. The villain of the piece is obviously Mr. Freeze, who is still looking for a cure for his cryogenically-frozen wife Nora Fries.
When the film begins, Nora's frozen state is disturbed, threatening her life unless she receives an organ transplant. Unfortunately, she has the rare AB negative blood type, which makes her a poor match for any available organs. Fortunately for the plot development, there are people living in Gotham that match, one of which just happens to be Barbara Gordon. Unsurprisingly, the villainous Mr. Freeze captures Barbara, much to the chagrin of her father, her boyfriend (Grayson), and Batman. Action ensues.
One of the reasons that I wasn't as excited to see this movie as I was Phantasm is that it's not done by the same team that did Batman: The Animated Series. Series creators Paul Dini and Alan Burnett's only involvement is as script consultants, as Boyd Kirkland takes over both directing and writing chores for this one (to be fair, Kirkland also worked on TAS, just in a lesser capacity than Dini, Burnett, or Bruce Timm). The film also fails to replicate the "dark deco" animation style of TAS, instead producing animation that is a poor blend of 2D and 3D rendering. A lot of the characters look like Scooby-Doo level animation, and the 3D rendered sequences involving vehicles looks like an early version of Reboot, that looks really poor when juxtaposed with the rest of the 2D film. Basically, the whole movie plays exactly like what it is: a straight-to-video knock-off of the original series. It's an above average straight-to-video feature, but certainly doesn't exceed market standards.
On the plus side, most of the voice actors from the series return to reprise their roles from the series, including Kevin Conroy as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Loren Lester as Dick Grayson/Robin, Efrem Zimbalist Jr as Alfred, Bob Hastings as Commissioner Gordon, Robert Constanzo as Detective Harvey Bullock, and Michael Ansara as Mr. Freeze. Sadly, Sara Gilbert does not reprise her work as Barbara Gordon, and I have to say I didn't really like Mary Kay Bergman's higher-pitched voice as Barbara/Batgirl. It's probably a voice that would've been fine were I not so used to the original.
Ultimately, I didn't really get into Subzero as much as I have the series or Phantasm. This movie was clearly designed more for children than the earlier works, complete with a unnecessary child character (Koonak) for the kids to identify with. Obviously, as an animated video, children are the key demographic and I'm not necessarily faulting the movie for going that direction. However, one of the strengths of TAS is that it was suitable for children, yet could be appreciated by older fans of the character. This movie lacked the maturity of the early film and show, and is a by-the-numbers adventure designed for those not old enough to appreciate nuance or complexity. Also, like the Batman-movie-that-shall-not-be-named, the movie was too Mr. Freeze-centric, pushing Batman to the side, almost in a supporting role. It's an above average kids movie, but I'm not a kid.
Rocky (1976)
This? This won Best Picture?
Now that I've seen it again, I gotta wonder how in the world did this movie beat Taxi Driver, All the President's Men, Network, and Bound for Glory, or most other films released that year. True, I haven't seen any of those movies, but I'm sure they're better than this cheeseball flick.
To begin, the movie is dull for the most part. It follows around Balboa through his plainly ordinary life with plainly ordinary shots, and painfully bad dialogue. The acting ain't much better either. Every character in the movie is a caricature, and none of the actors do anything to raise them above that status. Sylvester Stallone's Rocky is the mindless thug with a heart of gold. Despite the fact that he part times as hired muscle for a loan shark, he practically walks around with a halo and choir throughout the rough streets of Philly. Adrian (Talia Shire) is a mousey shut-in, pure and chaste, who does nothing to show why Rocky would be so into her. Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) is a cocky, disinterested imitation of Muhammed Ali, Burgess Meredith's Mickey is practically a cartoon character, and there is no scene that Burt Young can't ruin with his ham-handed, oafish, stereotypical portrayal of Adrian's brother Paulie.
The movie tries hard, reeeeeally hard to get us to care about the underdog Rocky and his lady-love Adrian. Their made for each other, you know? Nevermind that they're first kiss gives off creepy date rape vibes, they're sweet, especially since she seems mildly retarded. That this film has achieved full-on Spike TV guy movie status is kinda baffling, giving how slow and sentimental it is. You figure that it must be the boxing scenes that redeem it and stand out in the collective guy mind, but then the climactic boxing match between the Italian Stallion and Apollo Creed begins, and you realise that it kinda blows.
First off, there are waaaaaaaay too many punches thrown for the early rounds of a heavyweight fight. These things are dances, not slugfests. But, hey, that's okay since this is the action sequence, bring on the violence! Except... that after the brief flurry at the beginning, the movie just skips through most of the fight, a few seconds of round eight, a spit-take from round 11, then the obligatory cut scene to begin round 14 (where the cutman cuts Rocky, not a scene that didn't make the movie). It's ridiculous really, since all of Apollo's pre-fight hype involved him knocking out Rocky in three rounds, and then they skip past the third round. WHO IN THE HECK SETS UP A MOVIE LIKE THAT? And, better yet, who in the heck awards such a movie Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Film Editing? But, the entire movie wasn't a loss for me. Eventually, the big thug won me over (or wore me down), and I looked past how one dimensional he was. I've always been a big fan of his monologue scene before the big fight, where he admits to Adrian that he's nothing more than a bum, but if he could just go the distance with Creed, not beat him, but go the distance, than maybe he'd be something more than a bum. It's still a great scene (albeit cheapened by the sequels where the unpolished fighter beats a better prepared Creed and goes on to be unstoppable). And, when Rocky was training, pounding the beef, drinking the raw eggs, and running the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, I got chills. He's Gonna Fly Now, darnit! But, all in all, not a good movie. I'll give some of the weaker visual sequences a bit of a pass, since it was made for only about $1.1 million dollars, which also explains why some of the performances aren't up to snuff, since they didn't have that many takes (my favourite scene, the aforementioned monologue, was done in one take). But the budget doesn't account for the overall cheesiness of the flick, or the film's treatment of the final climactic battle as an afterthought.
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993)
The most accurate portrayal of Batman on film, ever.
The film maintains the "dark deco" direction and style of Batman: The Animated Series under the direction of Eric Radomski and Bruce W. Timm and the writing of Alan Burnett and Paul Dini (all of whom worked on TAS), and features the same voices talents as the show, including Kevin Conroy as Batman/Bruce Wayne, Efrem Zimbalist Jr as Alfred, Bob Hastings as Commissioner Gordon, Robert Constanzo as Detective Harvey Bullock, and Mark Hamill as The Joker. Basically, the movie takes all the best elements of the series, and puts it together as a longer episode. Except that if it were an episode, it never would have made it past the censors. Also, it'd be the best episode in the history of the show.
As a theatrically-released movie with a 76 minute running time, Mask of the Phantasm had license to do things the Saturday afternoon cartoon show could not do. It's a darker, more mature look at Batman than the series could be, receiving a PG rating. It's no Sin City or Heavy Metal, but is more intense than usual, showing murder, blood, and allusions to sex that could never be shown on the show. Which is not to say that it's an adult film, because it's not. It's still an animated movie about a super-hero, and is still primarily for kids (albeit, older kids). It just means that Mask of the Phantasm is closer to the comic book than the series is allowed to be.
In terms of story, Mask of the Phantasm is a mystery movie, as a new vigilante, who bears similarities to Batman, comes to Gotham and begins executing mob bosses. Batman must figure out who this new vigilante is to end the Phantasm's rampage, while Batman himself is being accused of the crimes. Meanwhile, a former love is back in Gotham (voiced by Dana Delany), drudging up painful memories for Bruce Wayne of the one who got away. While dealing with the Phantasm, his long-lost love, and Gotham Police, Batman also has to deal with The Joker, who is somehow involved in everything.
The movie is an excellent combination of action and suspense, and until the recent release of Batman Begins, was easily the best Batman film ever (but it now must place second). Strangely, since it is a cartoon, this film has the most convincing and realistic love story in Batman movie history (although, to be fair, there's no real competition in that area, as all the other love stories in Batman movies have been rushed and unconvincing). Comic book fans will geek out over the Year One like flashbacks featuring a non-costumed young Bruce Wayne attempting to fight crime, and the appearance of the Phantasm, who, with a cape, spectre-like mask, and scythe, bears a strong resemblance to Year Two's murderous vigilante The Reaper.
Personally, I absolutely loved this movie. However, it's not a movie for everyone. If you're not already a fan of Batman or Batman: The Animated Series, then I don't think this movie would have much of interest for you. But if you are a fan of the series or the character, then I highly recommend you check this film out.
13 Going on 30 (2004)
A winning turn for Jennifer Garner in an otherwise unremarkable movie.
For those that know nothing about this flick, it's basically a women's version of Big made for 2004. It's an adolescent chick flick through and through, is extremely formulaic and offers very few surprises and less originality. Not really the kind of movie I go for, but rather than bust on the movie for being what it tried to be and being designed to appeal to people that aren't me (namely those who are younger and without the Y chromosome), I'll try to judge it for what it is. What this film lacks in originality, it makes up for in charm. And that's almost completely attributable to star Jennifer Garner's comedic turn as a 13 year girl who suddenly finds herself in her grown up, 30 year old body. Co-stars Mark Ruffalo and Judy Greer contribute adequately with their little roles, but the truth is, were it not for Garner's performance, this movie would probably be unwatchable dreck.
Unlike Garner's other star turn Elektra, this movie perfectly taps into what makes the star so appealing: her megawatt smile and overall adorableness. She's not a sexy bad girl; she's a cute girl next door. Sure, she may briefly play a vixen on Alias, but overall, Sidney Bristowe is a vulnerable, sweet character. In 13 Going On 30, she turns up the charm to the max, and completely inhabits the mindset of a 13 year old girl in a 30 year old woman's body. Beyond what she says and how she says it, Garner's physical performance is pitch-perfect. She walks like an awkward adolescent unsure of how to handle her grown-up body. She can't walk in high heels, she cowers amongst authority figures, and enthusiastically chats on the phone. Garner makes the contrived idea of the movie easy to fall for because there is no moment where one does not believe that Garner is 13 years old. She proves herself an excellent physical comedian, and imbues the movie with such innocence and sweetness that it's hard not to get wrapped up in the movie and forget it's flaws.
A key ingredient to the film's plot is that, unlike in Big, Garner's Jenna Rink doesn't just wake up in a grown body, but rather she is transported from her life in 1987 as a 13 year old birthday girl, to herself as a 30 year old in 2004. A key difference is that everyone around her grew up and the world changed since Jenna last left it, so she has to deal with these changes. But more importantly, it allows the film to dodge issues dealing with modern teenagers and treat Jenna as the anachronistic innocent kid that we all remember from older movies. She's sweet and naive, not problemed and sexualised. This allows Garner to play her without an ounce of guile, making the character winning and fun (this is, after all, a comedy).
Ultimately, all I can say is that I enjoyed watching this flick more than I expected to. It adds nothing more to the genre and offers little to those who aren't already fans of the genre. It's a film that Julia Roberts would've made 10 years ago, but I doubt Roberts would have been able to pull it off as well as did Garner. If you were considering checking out the movie, but were hesitant to do so, I suggest that you do. You'll find yourself entertained and may consider the film a guilty pleasure. If you had no interest in watching the movie before, you're probably wise to stay away.
From Hell (2001)
An effective Gothic horror piece of speculative fiction...
For those who don't know, From Hell is an adaptation of the graphic novel by the same name, written by comics-god Alan Moore and with art by Eddie Campbell. Now, I've never read the graphic novel, so I won't be commenting on how well The Hughes Brothers adapted Moore's work. I will say this though, the movie certainly looks like a graphic novel, with its creepy rendition of late nineteenth century London, and its red painted skies.
This graphic novel stuff is important to note because one must realise that From Hell the movie isn't trying to be an accurate depiction of the history of Jack the Ripper, but rather an adaptation of a book that was a heavily-researched, but ultimately speculative fictional account on the story of Jack the Ripper. The movie isn't trying to be historically-accurate, but rather uses history as a context for its fictional narrative. Which doesn't mean that one can't be bothered when police officers carry flashlights or when they screw up a historical figure's actual title given the year of the story (1888), these are anachronisms that should've been correct. However, if someone is upset by the film's suggestions on the identity of Jack the Ripper or the fate of Mary Kelly, then they're missing the point of the fiction. The film isn't trying to be the definitive account of Jack the Ripper, but rather the telling of a theory, a "what if" tale as it were.
On to the film itself, From Hell is a gruesome telling of the Jack the Ripper story. Due to the nature of the story, it is gruesome and grim, and visually dynamic. I'd describe it as a moderately scary semi-horror movie for people (like myself) who don't watch horror movies. In watching the special features, it appears that the Hughes Brothers did a pretty good job matching scenes to the actual locations of the crimes in question, which makes the film a little more chilling in retrospect.
In terms of acting, Johnny Depp does a decent job as Inspector Fred Abberline, the chief investigator in the Ripper killings in White Chapel. He creates a character interesting enough that the audience is compelled to follow throughout the film, but nothing too spectacular. His co-star Heather Graham, playing prostitute and potential-Ripper victim Mary Kelly, is the weak link of the film, with a horrible accent and a useless romance sub-plot. It is obvious that she was cast to help open the film, and the character was fleshed out to humanise the victims. However, she is horribly out of place amongst the otherwise English cast (that being the actors not named Depp and Graham) and does little for the film than look good (which, I don't mind, since she does look good. Perhaps a little too good for a nineteenth century prostitute). Joining Depp and Graham are Ian Holm as the Royal Family's physician-in-ordinary Sir William Gull and Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Peter Godley.
I found the flick to be a fairly effective Gothic horror movie, and enjoyed the theoretical explanation of Jack the Ripper's true identity and motives. The film has some genuinely creepy and horrifying moments, chief among them is the carriage the Ripper uses to bring himself to his victims, which is made at the same time ordinary and other-worldly through the use of shadows and sound. It has a very Sleepy Hollow-feel to it, which is always a little creepy.
However, the film is merely above average, as it does a few things very well, but nothing extraordinarily well. A good movie to check it if you're in the mood for some late 1800's England creepiness, but aren't expecting high art.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Bruckheimer's best movie... but still a Bruckheimer movie...
I think I've always avoided this movie, until now, because it's a Jerry Bruckheimer flick, and there's nothing that guy can't dumb down. I really can't think of another producer who leaves such an indelible mark on a film that it's instantly recognisable as his. What other producer is mentioned as often in the marketing of a film than Bruckheimer, often more times than the director? He's become a brand, attaching his name generally means you're gonna get a certain kind of movie, no matter who's behind the lens (this time out, it's Ridley Scott, who received his third Oscar nomination for his work here). So my question going into the film was could Bruckheimer leave his usual brand of tricks behind for the serious subject matter at hand, or would it look like Armageddon in Somolia, or another Pearl Harbour? Well, it's not Armageddon in Somolia, and I'm assuming Black Hawk Down is better than Pearl Harbour (which I've never seen, and probably never will). But... it's still a Bruckheimer flick. He still has to have his slow motion epic shots, complete with swelling score, that just screams "HEROES. THESE ARE MEN DOING MANLY THINGS AND YOU WILL CHEER". It's that dedication to aestheticism that prevents what is a pretty good movie from becoming a great movie. It's self-reverential in the worst way, and little more than one large battle scene.
It's a pretty impressive battle scene, I'll give you, but it all exists without the proper context or heft that would give it's subject matter the treatment it deserves. The action is furious, the battles feel authentic, the explosions are loud. It's all terribly exciting and engrossing, but empty. Everything that occurs before the battle occurs is tired, clichéd and ordinary. Scott sets up the quirks of the men we will soon see in battle so that we shall care when they are placed in peril. But it feels stunted and obligatory, and not all that different than the montage of characters offered in Armageddon. Particularly weak is the opening of the film, which treats the viewers to six or seven pages of subtitled exposition, explaining the Somolian conflict and what our heroes are doing there (complete with poorly written, ham-handed commentary).
Here's the thing about movies: they're a visual medium. Use one or two pages of subtitles to begin a movie if you must, but this is a bit excessive. A simple rule is show, don't tell. Even a hackneyed device like having the soldiers watching the news or discussing the newspaper would have been preferable. The whole thing feels so much like an afterthought, that I'm convinced it was one. Test audiences were too confused about what Somolia was all about, so they threw that in there instead of re-shooting a sequence.
Bruckheimer can't bear all the blame for the film's short-comings. Ridley Scott is just as prone to sensationalism and aestheticism as is his production partner. As with his recent Kingdom of Heaven, it appears too often that Scott is more interested in setting up a unique and beautiful shot than finding the reasoning behind the sequence. He's all craft with no poetry. As a result, the film looks amazing, the battle is outstanding, but the whole thing leaves me very hollow, and not just because of the "war is hell" theme that always surrounds such films.
While recognising the flaws of Black Hawk Down, I still felt it to be a pretty good movie. And that's because while Scott may be lacking as an artist, he is a master craftsman. The battle is unrelenting and enthralling, and one of the best I've seen for modern combat. While most of the characters are little more than archetypes, I found a few members of the cast really stood out with their performances, particularly Eric Bana as the charismatic Delta Squadron member and Tom Sizemore, who could basically play army guys his whole career and not go wrong.
All in all, despite its many flaws, the superlatives out-weigh them. I enjoyed the flick for what it was, while still wishing the story was put in better hands.
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
Doesn't age well...
I'm not sure how, but somehow I managed to miss the Austin Powers craze of the late 90's. I never went to see the flick, and then when it became a pop culture phenomenon, I didn't really feel like seeing it. Heck, since it was around everywhere and everyone thought they had an Austin Powers impersonation, I felt like I'd already seen it by extension. A few years ago, I managed to catch it on a bus trip, but I must've fallen asleep or was too busy talking because a lot of the movie felt unfamiliar. So this is a review from someone watching it in full for the first time a few days ago.
Which is a bit unfair to the film, since it was such a huge part of pop culture when it came out, there's no way to view it unbiasedly now. To use the horribly tired phrase, this movie is so 1997. Like the title hero (and his nemesis), it's practically frozen in time itself, and watching it brings you back to the horrible time when everyone was saying "shagadelic, baby", or "one million dollars". *shudder* So, jokes that may have made me laugh were I to have seen it when it first came out make me roll my eyes now. I've seen so many clips of this flick that the jokes are already old. But, the thing is, I'm not sure if they would've been that great anyway. Mike Myers' style is to push a joke two or three (or four or five) beats past it being funny, in the hope that the pushing of the joke itself will be funny. It's a knowing wink to the audience that has made him a very successful man, but got old with me around the time of Wayne's World.
In fact, pretty much all of Austin Powers' shtick got old for me very quickly. Like many films from Saturday Night Live, clever comedic premises (like the James Bond of the swinging-sixties parody) that would or have worked great in five minute segments fail to connect for a feature length film. The jokes are pretty obvious and juvenile, bodily humour jokes that I've never really enjoyed (well, not since making noises with my underarms stopped being the height of comedic genius). The parody of the film is clever, but the jokes fall flat.
Well, I should say that most of the jokes fall flat. While Austin Powers himself does little for me, I do find Myers other character in the film, Dr. Evil, to be quite funny most of the time. Dr. Evil saved the movie for me, I loved his out-dated plans for world conquest, I loved his interactions with his son Scott (Seth Green), and loved the scene where he and Scott go to group therapy. That all made me laugh, even though I knew of most of the scenes.
But, he wasn't funny enough for me to give the flick a passing grade. Again, who knows, if I had caught the movie back when it meant something, I may have thought more of it. But, that speaks to the staying power of the film, which is to say that there isn't much.
La marche de l'empereur (2005)
Imagine, a hit documentary that isn't a political polemic...
Originally shot as a french documentary titled La Marche de l'empereur (it has made over $12 million in France), the film dropped it's original narration from the penguins point of view, added the soothing narration of Morgan Freeman and a new score, and released it Stateside. For the past few weeks, with limited release, the film has been the biggest grossing film on a per screen basis in America. It is the hot documentary of the year, and it didn't have to attack the government or a major corporation to do it (it's made an estimated $3.9 million in North America thus far).
Instead of political intrigue, National Geographic's film, directed by Luc Jacquet, focuses on the incredible journey undertaken by the Emperor Penguin every March in Antarctica, where they travel some 70 miles in the harsh winter to breed. It's a stunning portrayal of the brutal struggle they face in the most severe weather on earth, and a stark reminder of the adaptability of nature.
The tag line for the film is "In the harshest place on Earth, love finds a way", and the film does an excellent job in portraying both the harshness of their trials and the startling lengths they'll go through, if not for love (which is a little anthropomorphic for my liking), then for the over-powering desire to fulfill their genetic destiny. They travel 70 miles into the continent to find a bit of cover from the brutal winds and temperatures (reaching -80 degrees at points), and solid ice that will prevent their offspring from falling into the ocean beneath them. Not all of the penguins will survive this journey, nor the subsequent journeys back to the ocean to get more food for their chicks. The male penguins go as long as four months without eating, as they protect the eggs after the mothers have laid them while the females go back to eat. While watching the amazing lengths the penguins go to procreate, I couldn't help thinking what a silly animals we humans have become. These animals risk their lives to create life, and a lot of people don't want kids, or put it off until it's biologically difficult. But, then again, it's just another thing that separates us from beasts, along with those oh-so-handy opposable thumbs.
The film was stunningly beautiful with its portrayal of not only the dedication of the penguins, but also the unique, almost alien, territory that surrounds them. The shots they are able to get of the penguins, be it in their mating territory, under water, or in the middle of a blizzard, are phenomenal. The film does a great job in showing both the beauty and the horror of nature, as some of the eggs and chicks don't make it. The penguins are hunted under water and on the surface, and the climate is as punishing as it is fascinating. Also, it has Morgan Freeman narrative. What's not to like about that? I absolutely loved watching it. It was fun, touching, exciting, and interesting, and only clocks in at 80 minutes, so it manages to remain entertaining throughout. Forget Dakota Fanning, or The Bad News Bears, or anything else. You won't see anything cuter in the theatres this summer than a newborn baby penguin. You probably will never see anything cuter than baby penguins learning to walk for the first time. Conversely, you probably won't see anything sadder than dying baby penguins. The movie runs the viewer through an emotional roller coaster, and is as fun an experience I have had in a movie theatre all year.
I loved it. I think the only way I could've loved it more is if it were The March of the Beagles. Or the March of the Ewoks. I highly recommend you check this out when it comes to your town. PENGUINS!!!
Québec-Montréal (2002)
Frank and revelatory conversations about sex and relationships
Québec-Montréal is a Genie Award-nominated conversational dramedy that follows three different groups of people as they drive from Québec City to Montréal. Along the way, they have frank and revelatory conversations about sex and relationships which converge to reveal the conflicts and issues within the relationships between those in each car. And, of course, these three seemingly unconnected groups of travelers end up connecting with each other one way or another by the time the movie is over.
If you're a fan of talky comedies full of two-shots, as I am, then you'll like this flick. If that sounds incredibly boring to you, even if it were in English, then don't bother. But the sub-titles thing didn't really get in the way at all, since most of the shots are fairly static, your eyes aren't too distracted to catch the dialogue. The dialogue itself is pretty clever, both from a comedic stand-point and an observational one. My personal favourite was with the three guys driving down to Montréal to catch a flight to the vacation in Cuba, and the one dude busts on his friend in the backseat, stating that the backseat dude is so in touch with his feminine side that women date him so they can experiment with lesbianism without changing their night-time eating habits. BURN. I think I might know a dude like that.
Besides the dialogue, and the qualified performances of those delivering the dialogue, another plus for this flick is that because its French, it's chock-full of hot French chicks. I've been to Québec, and I can safely say that they seem to have an inordinate amount of hot chicks there, so it's good to see them represented here (unlike the Calgary movies I've seen, where the chicks didn't quite match up). I've actually ridden the reverse route of this movie (Montréal to Québec City), so I was hoping something might look familiar, but, no, since I was probably sleeping at the time.
Unfortunately, not everything about this flick is great. There's one particular device used throughout the movie, where a Barbie and Ken lookalike couple keep driving by in their red corvette, that is silly and pointless. I've seen useless gimmicks like this in other independent Canadian films, and I never like them. They take you out of what is otherwise a very solid, grounded film. The movie looks pretty good for its less than 2 million dollar (Canadian) budget, but there are times when you can see spots and specks on the camera lens. Ah well, thus is the nature of indie film-making.
Overall, I enjoyed it. I highly recommend it to others who like conversational comedies/dramas about relationships that slant toward melancholy. I'm not sure if it's available at all in the States, but the Canadian readers here should definitely consider checking it out.
Cinderella Man (2005)
It's emotionally manipulative, but in a good way
I had some hope for this film, since I've yet to see a sub-par Russell Crowe movie (I've yet to see Proof of Life), and the promos were giving it a Rocky meets Seabiscuit vibe, and I dug those flicks. Also, I've enjoyed, if not loved, other Ron Howard films, so I figured I was in all right hands. At the very least, I was hoping to see some good boxing action. Who knows? Maybe it would even live up to the way-too-early Oscar hype it's gotten.
Well, not quite. If this film had true Oscar-potential, it wouldn't be coming out in June. In fact, a good reason to release such a film in June is to get reviews that call it the best film of the year so far, because it looks like high art in comparison to films such as Madagascar, Star Wars, and The Longest Yard. It's a solid film with some excellent performances, but it's no Best Picture contender. At best, star Russell Crowe could get a nomination if this ends up a down year for movies, or Paul Giamatti could get a Best Supporting Actor nomination as recognition for his recent work, along with his excellent work in this film.
Crowe and Giamatti are easily the highlights of this film, and without them, it would probably be a mere average film at best. Their combined brilliance pushes Cinderella Man into the above average category, with Crowe in particular inhabiting the real-life character of Jim Braddock stunningly well. Think whatever you want about Russell Crowe the man, but Crowe the actor is quickly becoming the finest actor of his generation (or, at the very least, is in the top percentile). Braddock isn't an easy character to play and make interesting, as Howard seems intent on deifying him, making him so inherently good that he could easily be bland and boring in the hands of a lesser performer.
As for the film itself, it's well-worn territory in the standard Ron Howard form. Howard's M.O. is to grab, pull, and squish every ounce of sentimentality out of a story, and assault the viewer with it. It's not subtle, but, usually very effective. He did it in Backdraft, Apollo 13, and his award-winning A Beautiful Mind, and he pulls no punches in Cinderella Man (no pun intended. Or, perhaps it was intended, you decide). Braddock is a hero that all theatre-goers can get behind, beaten down by the Great Depression until he gets one last chance to make it in the boxing ring. He love his family, his wife, his country, and his friends. He's an honest man who is barely able to provide for his family, which kills him. Were it possible to view the movie with a cool detachment, you can see the parts of the movie where Howard is saying to the audience "okay, cry... NOW!" It's highly manipulative, but, it's effective. There were even instances that almost had me going.
Howard similarly plays with the hopes and fears of the audience, injecting the movie with legitimate menace and fear in the final climactic match. He wants the audience to feel every blow in the ring, and to fear for the hero's life against the brutal champion Max Baer. And, for the most part, you do. Away from the ring, Howard wants the audience to feel the oppressive struggle many faced during the Great Depression, and pours on the sentiment to accomplish this, and, for the most part, it works.
There's very little new to what Cinderella Man accomplishes. The boxing sequences are proficient, but the boxing-as-metaphor-for-human-struggle has been done many times before. The underdog sports hero capturing the heart of the nation theme was done two years ago in Seabiscuit. It's too bad that the material feels so recycled, because the story of Jim Braddock (nicknamed the Cinderella Man by a sportswriter during his miraculous comeback) is a compelling one. But, since the movie is so familiar, and Howard is so over the top with his sentimentality, the movie is no cinematic classic, and not the Oscar contender it so longs to be.
However, it is an entertaining movie. My advice to those thinking of seeing it is to go in, allow yourself to be manipulated, ride the emotional roller coaster, and don't disrespect yourself in the morning. You'll have a good night out at the movies, and if you were truly inspired by the story it told, do some reading to find out all the details that were fudged in order to make you laugh, cry, and hold your breath.
Desperado (1995)
The perfect recipe for an action adventure flick.
I'm not usually into gun-toting, high-adrenaline, ultra-macho action flicks, but I like this one. I think the reason why this normally isn't my genre of choice is because the films aren't very good. They're shoot-by-the-numbers flicks that are horribly predictable and difficult to embrace. Another huge problem with many action flicks is that the lead actors tend to be martial artists or hip-hop stars who lack a little thing I like to call... acting ability. Obviously, this isn't high art, and we don't need classically trained performers in the roles. But films do need charisma, the star needs to be interesting enough that I care whether or not he succeeds in his mission, and many action stars just aren't.
However, in Desperado, Antonio Banderas has charisma to spare (in fact, one of the reasons why Once Upon A Time In Mexico fell so flat for me is that it seemed as though every once of Banderas' appeal had been eliminated from it). He plays El Mariachi with zeal, wit, and even a little vulnerability, which makes the film a fun ride. He exudes the proper amount of cool and sex appeal, which allows him to win over both the men (who want to be him) and the women (who want to be with him) in the audience. The raw chemistry he shares with the ultra-hot Salma Hayek in this film would easily contend for a ranking on a Top Five list for on-screen chemistry, were I to do one.
The humour in this film is what makes it fun for me. Be it Steve Buscemi's fantastic opening narration scene, Cheech Marin as a crooked bartender, or just some of the hilarious moments during gunfights that Banderas finds himself in. The humour is effective, while not detracting from the mood of the movie the way many modern action and horror films do, by being too self-mocking and winking to the camera.
Other than Banderas, the major credit for the film's quality goes to Rodriguez. For it is the style of the film that makes it work. It is not realistic, it is stylish. Bullets fly recklessly, explosions back light our heroes to create the perfect shot, bodies fly, guitar cases become rocket launchers, and El Mariachi shoots handguns like a kid pretending his fingers are guns. It's not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be cool. And it is cool. It's exciting, sexy, funny, crazy, cool, and fun. The perfect recipe for an action adventure flick.
X-Men (2000)
It had me at snikt...
I've been reading X-Men comics since before my voice got low and girls started getting prettier. I have a solid run of 240 straight, plus hundreds of others from other X-related series. Reading X-Men comics is pretty much the only thing from my old life that I still do. So, when the movie came out, I was ready to geek out as much as any Star Wars fan waiting in line for a prequel.
I was also trepidatious that the movie would stomp all over that which I had loved for years, as Hollywood had done with every other comic book movie to have come out before X-Men. However, I was very hopeful that this one would be different. The reason? Bryan Singer.
Bryan Singer, the director of The Usual Suspects, one of the coolest movies ever. If he couldn't make a good X-Men movie, then it couldn't be done. For years, there had been talk of an X-Men movie, and for years I didn't want it to happen. Then, they got Bryan Singer, and I was cool with it.
When there was talk for years about an X-Men movie, there was always a consensus regarding one person that needed to be cast: Patrick Stewart as Professor Charles Xavier. Because no bald cap would do, we needed a real live bald guy! I was surprised he took the role, since he already played one iconic fanboy character, I figured he'd be tired of going to conventions by now. But play Xavier he did, and he did so flawlessly. Singer filled the cast with another esteemed British actor Ian McKellen to play arch-foe Magneto, Oscar winner Anna Paquin as Rogue, big star (and eventual Oscar winner) Halle Berry as Storm, Famke Janssen as Jean Grey, James Marsden as Cyclops, supermodel Rebecca Romijn-Stamos as Mystique, a wrestler, and Darth Maul. A good blend of solid actors and cheap talent to fill out the cast. Better than Dolph Lundgren as The Punisher, I say.
The only problem was casting the main character. They had someone cast, but he went and broke his hand right before shooting. So, they cast some guy no one's ever heard of, Hugh Jackman, to play the most important role in the movie. And he does so flawlessly. Jackman IS Wolverine, a performance so pitch-perfect that it just might be the best portrayal of a comic book character on film ever. Better than Christopher Reeve as Superman, better than Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. The first time I saw him on screen, stopping a guy's punch, with the sound of clanging metal echoing through the theatre, I marked out like a guy in a storm trooper outfit seeing Yoda fight Count Dooku. Then, Jackman growls, and sneers, and SNIKTs. He had me at snikt. No, wait, he had me at "bub". Or, at "every time". Ahhhh... so good.
Singer and co-writers Tom DeSanto and David Hayter do an excellent job in wrangling 40 years of mythology into a manageable 1.5 hour movie. He manages to show each of the 10 main mutants of the film showing off their powers in interesting ways (along with other background mutants like Iceman and Pyro), and hints at larger stories and origins surrounding them. He wisely plays down on some of the larger science-fiction elements of the series mythology, and focuses on the core myth surrounding the X-Men: protecting humans who hate and fear them. It is the most resonate theme of the film and the mythos, and the one that best gives a film purpose.
Sadly, the film is far from perfect. An hour and a half is not long enough to sufficiently develop the characters, leaving the film to operate at a break-neck pace to get its business out of the way. Even with the fast-pacing, it drags during the origin stories portion (or, at least it does for non-fans, it was just fine by me), while the audience awaits the next battle. And, in true comic book fashion, their is some really lame dialogue at times. Not Revenge of the Sith lame, but still pretty lame ("Do you know what happens when a toad is struck by lightning?" Ugh). Another problem is that favourite characters go underdeveloped or unfeatured (such as my favourite, Cyclops) while the movie focus on Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and Rogue. But, those are the choices that need to be made in a movie.
Overall, I loved-loved-loved this movie when it came out. Loved the tension between Wolverine and Cyclops. Loved Rogue's longing for human touch. Loved Magneto's handling of the police. And now, watching it 5 years later, I still love it. Of course, I'm seeing it all through my X-Men coloured-glasses. Which are ruby quartz.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
I've got a bad feeling about this...
I actually heard one reviewer (for whom I have no respect) proclaim that this movie might be the best Star Wars film ever, including the original three. Is that even possible? Or, was it at least the best of the prequels? Or, given the low standards set by the first two parts of the prequel trilogy, could Revenge of the Sith at least not be a disappointment? The answers to those questions is no, no, and no (that last one is tricky, given the double negative). To cut to the chase of this review, I thought this movie was terrible. The worst of the whole bunch. Worse than Attack of the Clones (which I did not like at all), worse than The Phantom Menace (which I didn't mind, and found to be average). Now that I've seen all the prequels, as a moderate fan of the original trilogy, I'm going to pretend that they never happened.
A few reasons why this movie sucked (sucked long and sucked hard): maybe 10% of what we see on the screen, through the whole movie, looks like it existed somewhere on the physical plane we inhabit (i.e., not created on a computer). You know, if I wanted to see that much CGI, I think I would've been better off watching a cartoon. Here's the thing: I'm far past the point where I can be impressed by the graphic abilities of computer artists. I get it, you can create anything. That doesn't make it impressive or interesting in of itself. George Lucas seems have never heard the adage "more is less", or, if he has heard it, spits in the face of it. Instead of focusing on one important detail and using his shot and landscapes to enhance and accentuate it, he fills the shot with as much eye candy as he can, to the point of annoying distraction. I think the goal is to make it so busy and detailed that the geeks will see it dozens of times in the hope of catching everything, but for me, it comes off as a kind of visual masturbation, and a sign of a guy who is far too in love with all his new graphics toys.
The dialogue in this movie very well might be the worst I've ever heard in a movie. Ever. If not the worst, it's definitely in the top five. The acting is stilted and wooden, for which I can't even blame the actors. It's quite apparent that Lucas treats his actors as little more than set pieces, and once they've belted out their pathetic lines, he wants them to get the hell out of the way so he can throw in more cool stuff. In this respect, I think Lucas is a lot like many Star Wars fanatics themselves: he long ago rejected the usefulness and need for human interaction. There's a reason why Yoda and R2-D2 are the most interesting and fully actualised characters in the movie.
Those are just some of the many reasons why Revenge of the Sith sucked. There are more, but to really get into them, I'd have to make this a spoiler-laden review. Instead, I'll forward a theory about why the prequels sucked (a theory that doesn't involve George Lucas' failings as a director or writer, those ones are easy). Here's why the prequels were doomed to fail: they are basically exercises in fleshing out, explaining, and revealing the mythology of Star Wars. Since the release of the original trilogy, a vast and large mythology has been built about the story that was only hinted at in the original movies. There were books, comics, cartoons, video games and more that laid out the back story that lead to "Episode IV". And that's fine. When the prequels came out, it was now time for that back story, the heart of the mythology, to be built.
The problem isn't that it's impossible to live up to the expectations of fans who have been living it for years, the problem is that film is the wrong medium for myth-building. Books, comics, television, these are the mediums to support such an exercise. A movie should be a 2 - 2.5 hour story, not an attempt to justify the existence of a story. The prequels were basically a 7 hour origin story of Darth Vader. Oooooooh, exciting. Vader wasn't even the most interesting character from the original trilogy, he just had the coolest costume.
And the costume is still cool, in fact, the coolest three seconds of Revenge of the Sith is when Anakin puts on the helmet for the first time and breathes. Two bad the other 140 minutes were so painful to watch.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
Unless sword-fighting epics are your thing, don't see this movie.
Sadly, my initial instincts about the movie proved to be true. It seems as though director Ridley Scott really wanted to do a Crusades movie, and set out do so. He had some big ideas of battle scenes, some ideas of bravery, and an agenda about the validity of religious warfare (and religion in general). What he didn't have, sadly, is a story.
Which pretty much made everything else in the film a pointless exercise. The characters are empty and lifeless, the plot is near non-existent, and the drama is entirely dependent on how easily you get wrapped up in sword fights. I did not care for a single character on the screen, so whether or not they lived or died, succeeded or failed, loved or lost all meant nothing to me. What little story there is in the movie is loosely pieced together in a rushed attempt to get us from one overwrought battle sequence to another. For much of the movie, I felt like there was some preparatory reading I supposed to do before that movie that would have filled me in on the missing pieces.
What little plot there is revolves around coincidences so unbelievably convenient that it becomes hard to take the rest of the film seriously, even though it painfully wishes to be taken seriously. The star of the film, Orlando Bloom plays a grieving blacksmith at the beginning of the movie that barely knows how to hold a sword or speak out loud. By the end, even though it appears as though merely a year has passed, he becomes the greatest military mind the Holy Land has ever seen, and the a leader with the combined oratory skills and charisma of Patton and Jesus Christ. Which isn't even the most unbelievable part of the film. That would be when the boat taking Bloom to Jerusalem capsizes and washes up on shore, and everyone aboard except he and one horse dies. He seems to escape unharmed. Maybe, he's Unbreakable. But, I will give Bloom this: he wears facial hair in the movie, which I guess proves that he is indeed a male of the species. I bet it's fake.
Since the only purpose for the existence of this movie seems to be to show Crusades-type fighting, I will admit that many of the battle scenes were technically impressive. In particular, the depiction of the siege of Jerusalem was fairly well done, with the exception of the CGI'd Muslim army, which was a bit overdone, making it appear to be an army of roughly 5 million. This seems to be a particular fetish of recent movies, portraying impossibly large armies on film in an attempt to blow the viewer's minds. Anyway, given credit to some of the visual strength of the film, I give it 4 out of 10 stars. Unless sword-fighting epics are your thing, don't see this movie. You probably won't hate it if you see it, but you aren't missing anything if you skip it.
The United States of Leland (2003)
Like American Beauty plus Donnie Darko minus the quality
For those of you who have never heard of the movie until now (of which, I presume there are many lucky people who haven't), I'll summarise it for you. Ryan Gosling plays the titular character of Leland, who also serves as the film's narrator (a la Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, but without the intelligent observations on life). Leland goes to jail for stabbing a retarded kid to death, and the movie attempts to figure out why he did it. He seems to be a nice boy (if not mentally absent), and is portrayed by Gosling with a complete lack of violence, anger, or agenda (and if you're waiting for him to reveal his sinister side later in the movie, don't waste your time-- it's not that kind of movie). Once in juvenile prison, Leland goes to classes taught by Pearl Madison, ably portrayed by Don Cheadle (who is incapable of anything but quality, even when in bad movies). Pearl attempts to unlock the mystery of Leland in an attempt to figure out how such a kid could do such a thing, and so he could write a book about it later (along with being a juvenile prison teacher, Pearl is also an aspiring author).
The relationship between Leland and Pearl is the driving narrative behind the film, as their talks unveil Leland's past to the audience. However, to call it the central focus would imply that this meandering film had one. It does not. The United States of Leland boasts an impressive cast, which seems to be to the detriment of the film. It seems as though writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge (don't worry that you haven't heard of him, he's never done anything) had to give EVERY character a personal story arc and personality flaw in order to get the actors to play them. Most of these traits and stories are clichéd, and most go underdeveloped and unresolved.
I'll try and break them down here: Martin Donovan and Ann Magnuson are the parents of the slain retarded boy (I love how the movie kept calling the kid "retarded", never "mentally disabled". That part made me laugh inside), they apparently have a cold relationship, because all suburban marriages in contemporary cinema must be cold. Their other two kids are Michelle Williams, who is apparently an aspiring actress about to attend college, and Jena Malone, who plays the same troubled teen-archetype she always plays, this time with a heroine addiction. Malone was also the girlfriend of Leland, which gives him his link to his victim. Williams' boyfriend, who was orphaned and came to live with the family, and is a baseball player looking to go to the same college as his girlfriend, is played by Chris Klein. He ends up doing more with his character than any of the other bit players, managing to steal the movie at times. Lena Olin is Leland's mother, who seems to be perpetually sad for some reason. Kevin Spacey (also the executive producer) is Leland's cold and absentee father, who is a famed novelist. Eventually, Sherilyn Fenn will show up to put a wrinkle in Leland's story-- if you even care at that point. Oh yeah, and there's a drug-dealing ex-boyfriend, a couple of fellow juvees, and a co-worker of Pearl's with whom he has an affair on his long distance girlfriend with (played by Kerry Washington).
Sorry if all that synopsis and character breakdown took so long. If it seemed meaningless and boring, then you've just experienced a bit of what I did during the 108 minutes I spent watching the movie. But the unruly supporting cast of over-wrought clichés is the least of this film's crimes. The biggest one is that the whole exercise is entirely pointless. We aren't given a fascinating look into a troubled mind, we aren't given an effective explanation, we aren't given much of anything. Given that it sucked so much, I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you so that you never have to see it: Leland stabbed the retard because all Leland could see in the world was sadness, and wanted to spare Corky (or whatever the victim's name was) the sadness in his eyes. It's like the worst emo band in the world made an album, and titled it "The World Is Sad, So I Killed A Retard". Oh, and Leland dies in the end, in a sequence so reliant of unbelievable coincidences that it would have ruined the movie, if the movie didn't already suck. Of course he dies in the end, because that made the movie so deep.
I'm giving the movie 2 stars, because the actors themselves all did a pretty good job with the junk they were given. The scenes with Cheadle and Gosling together were even interesting on some levels. But, to paraphrase the film itself, you have to believe that movies are more than the sum of their parts, kiddo.
A Bug's Life (1998)
Yet another Pixar success
First off, let's get the technical details out of the way. Like all Pixar films, A Bug's Life looks fantastic. The animation is bold and bright, giving its anthropomorphic bugs the usual 3D rendering process that Pixar first showed the world with its first picture, Toy Story. Also, the film does a fairly convincing job with fire in the film, a tricky element to capture with animation.
The voice actors all do a great job fleshing out their characters, and do so without upstaging their characters. Unlike other recent animated films, where the animators chose to tailor the animated figure to the actor, the actor tailor their performances to the animated figure. Kevin Spacey as the villainous Hopper is a particular standout, along with David Hyde Pierce's comedic performance as Slim.
The story itself is engaging, following the protagonist ant, Flik (Dave Foley), in his attempt to redeem himself in the eyes of the colony by finding other insects to help him ward off the grasshopper gang that torments them. In this attempt, he stumbles across a group of fun and lovable circus bugs (a collection including a male ladybug, a preying mantis, a black widow spider, a gypsy moth, a walking stick-bug, a caterpillar, a dung beetle, and a couple pillbugs), who come back to the colony with him in a misunderstanding. Eventually, everyone teams up to save the day. Flik's journey to "the city" where he finds these bugs is the funniest part of the movie, and a perfect example of how an animated film can use sight gags for great comedic effect, without having them dominate the entire narrative structure.
My favourite parts of the movie are when the bugs acted like bugs (mosquitoes flying into bug zappers, ants losing it when separated from the colony, flies having 24 hours to live). These parts are quite clever and contribute to some of the genuine laughs of the film. However, while a fun movie, and a great family movie, this movie doesn't quite capture the high levels of quality of other Pixar works like Finding Nemo or The Incredibles. Of all of Pixar's films, this one is probably the most kid-centric and has the least to offer for adults. Which, is to be expected since it's about bugs. Kids love bugs. Because kids are weird.
Which makes it a perfect film for kids, but merely a pleasant film for the rest of us. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it.
Sometimes in April (2005)
A chilling reminder of man's incomprehensible capacity for cruelty
Sometimes In April is an HBO film detailing the Rwandan genocide of 1994. As it is the second Rwandan genocide movie I've seen this year (following 2004's Hotel Rwanda), comparisons between the two films are unavoidable.
Both are hauntingly powerful accounts of the unimaginable horrors that took place a mere eleven years ago. Each film is ambitious in its attempt to reveal the senselessness that gripped the tiny African nation, and graphically depicts the hell that descended upon it, leading the slaughter of over 800,000 Tutsis and sympathetic Hutus in only 100 days. Both films feature casts largely made up of actors unknown to North American audiences (only Debrah Winger and Noah Emmerich were familiar to me, each of whom had smaller parts).
Sometimes In April wasn't as dramatic as was Hotel Rwanda, which has been accused of playing up certain situations merely to build suspense and manipulate the audience. In fact, some of the drama in the narrative of Sometimes In April is taken away at the very beginning of the film, which shows our protagonist, Augustin (Idris Elba), in Rwanda circa 2004, reflecting back ten years to the time of the killings. This opening act establishes that he and his new lover survive the tragedy, as does his brother who is currently standing trial for his part in the genocide as a radio journalist who helped incite and guide the militia through the slaughter. We also find out that Augustin's wife and children did not survive the genocide. From a narrative standpoint, this lessons the drama his family later faces in the telling of the past, as the audience knows that they will not survive their ordeals, and he will. The emotional impact is still there, as the sadness and horror of the event is not dulled by the pre-determined nature of the events, but the suspense is eliminated.
There are scenes in this movie that are incredibly difficult to watch, surpassing Hotel Rwanda and even Schindler's List in their stark portrayal of brutality. Unlike in Hotel Rwanda, the slaughter in Sometimes In April does not appear off screen. The camera picks it up in wide shots of city streets, and features it prominently in others. Director Raoul Peck is sensitive to make sure the violence in the film is not done for sensationalistic reasons, but rather to reveal how truly atrocious the killings truly were. In particular, the scene inside the Catholic school will haunt me for some time to come.
Unfortunately, in trying to cover many aspects of the tragedy, Peck makes some sacrifices in the overall narrative that hurt the film. The sub-plot revealing America's non-involvement was interesting, but unfocused and unnecessary. One gets the feeling that those scenes were added to get American actors into the film, and to damn the U.S. for turning its back while Africans died at rates of up to 8,000 a day. While the U.S. does have its part of the blame to share, particularly with their unwillingness to jam the radio signals that helped organise the killings, the film fails to spread the blame to rest of the world, other than implicit blame directed toward the French for their role as sympathisers and allies to the Tutsis (history really does repeat itself, huh?). Another subplot involving a woman testifying in front of the war crimes tribunal about the gang-raping she and other Rwandan women suffered isn't given the time necessary to fit into the film's narrative structure. It is an important story about the atrocities committed, but feels rushed and underdeveloped.
The stories and horrors to come out of this event are too numerous and involved to try and capture through one film. That is why it is important to focus on one character, or a small group of related characters, to guide the viewer through the movie. For the most part, Sometimes In April does this, it is when it veers off track that the film trips up. As an educational tool, the film glosses over a lot of information in its attempt to show too many sides of the story. Had I not already seen Hotel Rwanda and begun reading Lt. General Roméo Dallaire's autobiography Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, I would have found myself confused at many points in the movie. Oddly, the movie assumes that the viewer will already possess a good deal of knowledge about Rwanda, even though the film itself cleverly shows us that while it was going on, the western world was more focused on the death of Kurt Cobain and the controversy involving Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding.
Therefore, while I found this to be a powerful and important film, and recommend others view it, I recommend that you watch Hotel Rwanda first if you are unfamiliar with the details and issues that took place in 1994. Then, for another side of the story, watch Sometimes In April.