I cannot stress this enough: if you have not seen The Dark Knight Rises yet, do not read any further. The success of the film depends wholly on allowing it to develop at its own pace; any spoilers therein would detract from the overall experience.
Friday, August 31, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises - EPIC Review
I cannot stress this enough: if you have not seen The Dark Knight Rises yet, do not read any further. The success of the film depends wholly on allowing it to develop at its own pace; any spoilers therein would detract from the overall experience.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Monday at the Movies - August 27, 2012
Welcome to Week Thirty-Two of “Monday at the Movies.” This week we continue our long-promised look
at the “Alien Quadrilogy.”
Aliens (1986) – Aliens changes up a lot of what worked
in Alien, swapping director Ridley
Scott for James Cameron and moving from claustrophobic horror to expanded
action. It’s a film that tries almost
too hard to distance itself from the original, but although it’s so different
from its predecessor Aliens succeeds
on a number of levels. Returning as
Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver steps up her performance as Ripley suffers from
PTSD after her encounter aboard the Nostromo; Weaver successfully evolves her
character from fearful victim into proactive hero as she leads a military
platoon against the Xenomorphs. The rest
of the cast is passable: Lance Henriksen
plays android Bishop, but he doesn’t do as much as Ian Holm in Alien, and Paul Reiser is surprisingly
scummy as a company man whose only investment is in weaponizing the creature, while
Bill Paxton plays an entertainingly campy soldier whose every line is a
catchphrase (“Game over, man! Game over!”). And the action scenes are first-rate; much as
it pains me to laud James Cameron, he does strong work filming the chaos of a
full Xenomorph squadron’s assault. But in
this element perhaps rests the film’s greatest detriment; we see entirely too much
of the Xenomorphs (indeed, we even have a name for them now). There was something to be said about the
original film’s refusal to let us see the creature fully, so an element of
horror is lost when the creatures are seen in full lighting; worse, they’re not
indestructible, which makes them mere cannon fodder at times. But what Cameron sacrifices with the visible Xenomorphs,
he reclaims with the Alien Queen, whose final sequence with Ripley and the
iconic cargo loader is as exciting as anything the film offers.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week, but stay tuned later this week for our no-spoilers-barred review of The Dark Knight Rises!
Aliens (1986) – Aliens changes up a lot of what worked
in Alien, swapping director Ridley
Scott for James Cameron and moving from claustrophobic horror to expanded
action. It’s a film that tries almost
too hard to distance itself from the original, but although it’s so different
from its predecessor Aliens succeeds
on a number of levels. Returning as
Ellen Ripley, Sigourney Weaver steps up her performance as Ripley suffers from
PTSD after her encounter aboard the Nostromo; Weaver successfully evolves her
character from fearful victim into proactive hero as she leads a military
platoon against the Xenomorphs. The rest
of the cast is passable: Lance Henriksen
plays android Bishop, but he doesn’t do as much as Ian Holm in Alien, and Paul Reiser is surprisingly
scummy as a company man whose only investment is in weaponizing the creature, while
Bill Paxton plays an entertainingly campy soldier whose every line is a
catchphrase (“Game over, man! Game over!”). And the action scenes are first-rate; much as
it pains me to laud James Cameron, he does strong work filming the chaos of a
full Xenomorph squadron’s assault. But in
this element perhaps rests the film’s greatest detriment; we see entirely too much
of the Xenomorphs (indeed, we even have a name for them now). There was something to be said about the
original film’s refusal to let us see the creature fully, so an element of
horror is lost when the creatures are seen in full lighting; worse, they’re not
indestructible, which makes them mere cannon fodder at times. But what Cameron sacrifices with the visible Xenomorphs,
he reclaims with the Alien Queen, whose final sequence with Ripley and the
iconic cargo loader is as exciting as anything the film offers.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week, but stay tuned later this week for our no-spoilers-barred review of The Dark Knight Rises!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Monday at the Movies - August 20, 2012
Welcome to Week Thirty-One of “Monday at the Movies.” With the summer blockbuster season officially
closed (I, The Cinema King, decree it – so let it be written, so let it be
done), and in the wake of Prometheus,
it’s time for that long-promised look at the “Alien Quadrilogy.”
Alien (1979) – Ridley
Scott has been mostly canonized for Alien,
and not without reason; more than thirty years later the film remains frighteningly
effective and gruesomely imaginative, even with the lights on (how wonderful
this film must have been in a full darkened theater!). The story, a hybrid of science fiction and
horror tropes, mutates frequently, much like its eponymous creature, so that
the audience never gets a comfortable handle on things; instead, we’re put on
edge at every twist and turn. The cast doesn’t
do Oscar-caliber work, but they too are pivotal in subverting expectation, particularly
Sigourney Weaver, in a star-making performance as the heroine Ripley, and Ian
Holm, in brilliant creepy form as the shady scientist Ash. As with Prometheus,
this is a film that functions as much on a visceral level as an
intellectual/aesthetic one, with a pervasive feeling of suspenseful dread over the
whole affair. Scott wisely knows how
much to show and how much to conceal, such that the creature might even be
behind your sofa (you’d best make sure it’s not). But unlike its prequel successor, Alien never aspires beyond its ability;
we don’t need to know why the crew of the Nostromo
is in space, nor do they have any goals but survival – nor, in this case, do
they need them. This is an insular and
claustrophobic film which feels as taut as its scope. Kudos especially to H.R. Giger, whose
sexualized designs pervade the film and give it an offbeat sensibility that quickly
and efficiently distances Alien from
those other spaceship movies while setting an aesthetic tone for the future of
the filmed future. Effective and
intelligent, Alien deserves its
status as a cultural icon.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!
Alien (1979) – Ridley
Scott has been mostly canonized for Alien,
and not without reason; more than thirty years later the film remains frighteningly
effective and gruesomely imaginative, even with the lights on (how wonderful
this film must have been in a full darkened theater!). The story, a hybrid of science fiction and
horror tropes, mutates frequently, much like its eponymous creature, so that
the audience never gets a comfortable handle on things; instead, we’re put on
edge at every twist and turn. The cast doesn’t
do Oscar-caliber work, but they too are pivotal in subverting expectation, particularly
Sigourney Weaver, in a star-making performance as the heroine Ripley, and Ian
Holm, in brilliant creepy form as the shady scientist Ash. As with Prometheus,
this is a film that functions as much on a visceral level as an
intellectual/aesthetic one, with a pervasive feeling of suspenseful dread over the
whole affair. Scott wisely knows how
much to show and how much to conceal, such that the creature might even be
behind your sofa (you’d best make sure it’s not). But unlike its prequel successor, Alien never aspires beyond its ability;
we don’t need to know why the crew of the Nostromo
is in space, nor do they have any goals but survival – nor, in this case, do
they need them. This is an insular and
claustrophobic film which feels as taut as its scope. Kudos especially to H.R. Giger, whose
sexualized designs pervade the film and give it an offbeat sensibility that quickly
and efficiently distances Alien from
those other spaceship movies while setting an aesthetic tone for the future of
the filmed future. Effective and
intelligent, Alien deserves its
status as a cultural icon.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
As the summer blockbuster season winds to a close, The Bourne Legacy revisits a familiar
franchise with a new angle – one of the first “midquels” I’ve ever seen – and a
common twist – “Put Jeremy Renner in it.”
Both end up being profitable decisions, as The Bourne Legacy is perhaps more enjoyable than its forerunners, “Bourne
again” anew.
Taking place sometime during the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, Legacy wisely sets most of the original trilogy aside and allows filmgoers to focus not on unraveling a nebulous conspiracy but on following one man – Aaron Cross (Renner) – and his attempts to stay one step ahead of government officials (led by an extremely dedicated Edward Norton) who want him dead. Along the way he meets up with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), a scientist coming to terms with her own involvement in the supserspy program that birthed Cross – and Jason Bourne.
After stepping into Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and representing the common-ish man in The Avengers, Jeremy Renner is wasting none of his post-Hurt Locker inertia by stepping into yet another big-league franchise. The decision to focus entirely on Renner is a daring one, since the Bourne name is synonymous with Matt Damon, but Damon’s absence here is barely noticeable, in part because Renner’s performance as an edgy superspy is extremely compelling. His Aaron Cross is a man forced into a difficult situation, and Renner is a master of switching between lethal force and a killer sense of humor; the transition never feels out of character.
But more importantly, the film crafts an interesting narrative around him that renders superfluous any appearance by Jason Bourne. Director Tony Gilroy performs an almost impossible feat by making this film virtually stand-alone, never relying on what’s come before but instead guiding us through a new corner of a shared universe. The film expands on the science behind the secret project that “created” Jason Bourne and goes deeper into the human cost of such a large-scale initiative, but it focuses more on the attempts of the government to roll up the project and obscure its existence – with Cross in the middle.
The highlight of the Bourne films has always been their intense action sequences. Quantitatively, The Bourne Legacy contains fewer, opting for a slow burn rather than a relentless string of big moments. When the film does explode, it does so with a few very well-directed sequences. I won’t spoil any by describing in too great of detail, but there’s a first-rate shoot-out and a breathtaking motorcycle chase that are as well-crafted as anything else in the franchise.
While The Bourne Legacy probably won’t be the greatest movie you’ll have seen all summer, it’s an exceptionally compelling film with thrilling action sequences and a great star who knows how to get the audience on his side. Although I can’t say for certain without rewatching the original trilogy, this may be my favorite of the Bourne films.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Monday at the Movies - August 13, 2012
Welcome to Week Thirty of “Monday at the Movies.” Following last week’s coverage of the X-Men
trilogy, this week we’re taking a look at the two prequels that have been
released thus far.
X-Men Origins:
Wolverine (2009) – As indisputably the most famous X-Man, it’s no surprise Hugh
Jackman’s Wolverine got his own spin-off, and the prequel treatment sheds light
on his mysterious past, unknown even to himself. The film goes all the way back to his
childhood with his brother Victor “Sabretooth” Creed (Liev Schreiber) through
his time as an experiment at the hands of William Stryker (Danny Huston) and
concluding with a visit to Three Mile Island and a confrontation with Weapon XI
(alias Deadpool, here played by Ryan Reynolds).
Wolverine is something of a
mixed bag; while there are truly great moments in the film, even fans of the franchise
will find this movie overstaffed.
Jackman proves himself Wolverine incarnate once more, Huston is a fine
stand-in for a young Brian Cox, and Schreiber is another in a long line of
great comic book performances, lending his Oscar-worthy chops to an ambiguous antagonist
who’s quite literally able to chew the scenery.
The story’s very interesting too, fleshing out a complicated backstory
with a deft credits montage (which could be its own movie) and a
fill-in-the-blanks attitude that resolves some of the unsolved flashbacks of X2.
But while the heart of the film is gold, it’s padded out with an overfull
cast of characters and too many undeveloped sideplots. It’s fun for insiders to see The Blob or Gambit
show up, but the film is so focused on Wolverine (and rightly so) that it barely
scratches the surface of these characters; consequently, so many characters do
so little that many of the supporting actors do little more than phone in their
performances (see Taylor Kitsch’s groan-worthy “accent” as Gambit). The film rushes to its conclusion, no doubt
because of its many side trips, but the news that a sequel will take the
newly-amnesiac Wolverine to Japan is promising, even if only to see Jackman
romp as Wolverine once more.
X-Men: First Class (2011)
– Matthew Vaughn’s period-piece prequel was one of 2011’s surprise hits; after
the bloated Wolverine’s disappointing
presentation, my expectations were low.
But First Class does so many
things right that I’m ready to say it’s the best and most enjoyable of the
X-Men films. James McAvoy and Michael
Fassbender turn in A-plus performances as Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr (the
man who would be Magneto), channeling but never aping their predecessors. Their “First Class,” led by Jennifer Lawrence
as Mystique, is a ragtag group that proved before The Avengers that an ensemble superhero cast was doable, and Kevin Bacon
lends an element of well-done camp as the piece’s maniacal villain. The script is ambitious and plays its Sixties
vibe to the hilt, replete with Nazi-hunting, Cold War tension, and groovy
clothing. In the hands of a lesser
director, the script would have flopped, but Vaughn owes far more to the able
cast who breathe life into the characters, realizing fully their inner
struggles and “great responsibility.” It’s
not that comic book movies generally have bad acting; it’s that many of us aren’t
expecting Oscar-caliber. Hence the
surprising strength of First Class,
especially rising star Fassbender’s heartbreaking turn as a man for whom peace
is a waning option. Only January Jones
as the psychic Emma Frost disappoints, drifting lackadaisically through an
otherwise top-notch company. But what First Class wisely remembers ends up
being its greatest strength; for all the sturm
und drang which usually occupies the genre, superhero films are supposed to
be fun, and by the end of the film you’ll agree with Charles – “That’s a groovy
mutation.”
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week, but stay tuned for a full review of The Bourne Legacy this Wednesday!
X-Men Origins:
Wolverine (2009) – As indisputably the most famous X-Man, it’s no surprise Hugh
Jackman’s Wolverine got his own spin-off, and the prequel treatment sheds light
on his mysterious past, unknown even to himself. The film goes all the way back to his
childhood with his brother Victor “Sabretooth” Creed (Liev Schreiber) through
his time as an experiment at the hands of William Stryker (Danny Huston) and
concluding with a visit to Three Mile Island and a confrontation with Weapon XI
(alias Deadpool, here played by Ryan Reynolds).
Wolverine is something of a
mixed bag; while there are truly great moments in the film, even fans of the franchise
will find this movie overstaffed.
Jackman proves himself Wolverine incarnate once more, Huston is a fine
stand-in for a young Brian Cox, and Schreiber is another in a long line of
great comic book performances, lending his Oscar-worthy chops to an ambiguous antagonist
who’s quite literally able to chew the scenery.
The story’s very interesting too, fleshing out a complicated backstory
with a deft credits montage (which could be its own movie) and a
fill-in-the-blanks attitude that resolves some of the unsolved flashbacks of X2.
But while the heart of the film is gold, it’s padded out with an overfull
cast of characters and too many undeveloped sideplots. It’s fun for insiders to see The Blob or Gambit
show up, but the film is so focused on Wolverine (and rightly so) that it barely
scratches the surface of these characters; consequently, so many characters do
so little that many of the supporting actors do little more than phone in their
performances (see Taylor Kitsch’s groan-worthy “accent” as Gambit). The film rushes to its conclusion, no doubt
because of its many side trips, but the news that a sequel will take the
newly-amnesiac Wolverine to Japan is promising, even if only to see Jackman
romp as Wolverine once more.
X-Men: First Class (2011)
– Matthew Vaughn’s period-piece prequel was one of 2011’s surprise hits; after
the bloated Wolverine’s disappointing
presentation, my expectations were low.
But First Class does so many
things right that I’m ready to say it’s the best and most enjoyable of the
X-Men films. James McAvoy and Michael
Fassbender turn in A-plus performances as Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr (the
man who would be Magneto), channeling but never aping their predecessors. Their “First Class,” led by Jennifer Lawrence
as Mystique, is a ragtag group that proved before The Avengers that an ensemble superhero cast was doable, and Kevin Bacon
lends an element of well-done camp as the piece’s maniacal villain. The script is ambitious and plays its Sixties
vibe to the hilt, replete with Nazi-hunting, Cold War tension, and groovy
clothing. In the hands of a lesser
director, the script would have flopped, but Vaughn owes far more to the able
cast who breathe life into the characters, realizing fully their inner
struggles and “great responsibility.” It’s
not that comic book movies generally have bad acting; it’s that many of us aren’t
expecting Oscar-caliber. Hence the
surprising strength of First Class,
especially rising star Fassbender’s heartbreaking turn as a man for whom peace
is a waning option. Only January Jones
as the psychic Emma Frost disappoints, drifting lackadaisically through an
otherwise top-notch company. But what First Class wisely remembers ends up
being its greatest strength; for all the sturm
und drang which usually occupies the genre, superhero films are supposed to
be fun, and by the end of the film you’ll agree with Charles – “That’s a groovy
mutation.”
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week, but stay tuned for a full review of The Bourne Legacy this Wednesday!
Monday, August 6, 2012
Monday at the Movies - August 6, 2012
Welcome to Week Twenty-Nine of “Monday at the Movies.” This week I’ll be covering the original X-Men
trilogy. (The prequels will be getting
their own post further down the line.)
X-Men (2000) – In
many ways, we comic book movie fans owe a lot to Bryan Singer, who demonstrated
in this film that the genre was a viable one beyond the self-parody of the
Schumacher era. Singer wisely opts to
throw viewers into the midst of the mythology without a lengthy origin
sequence; we join Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Rogue (Anna Paquin) as they meet
the X-Men, a group of powerful mutants led by Professor X (Patrick Stewart) in
opposition to the evil Magneto (Ian McKellen).
Using Wolverine and Rogue as entry points is genius; diehard fans
already love Wolverine, and newcomers will find Jackman one of the more
engaging comics-to-film translations.
But the film is populated by fantastic actors – including Halle Berry,
who doesn’t do much but does it well – and none are more brilliant than Stewart
and McKellen, who as dueling foes are more Shakespeare than Stan Lee (who
cameos, by the way – his first in a Marvel movie). Even James Marsden, who’s usual more
milquetoast than Patrick Wilson, proves a good fit as the stick-in-the-mud
Cyclops. As director, Singer does a great
job making the soap opera source material accessible and streamlined without
sacrificing the emotional complexity of the characters; there are hundreds of
X-Men, but Singer picks the big ones and never loses sight of the fact that their
interactions are more interesting than the giant machine Magneto builds for the
surreal climax of the film. Above all,
this is a film that feels real, that winks
not ironically but lovingly at its source material, acknowledging its depth
without overloading its audience.
X2: X-Men United (2003) – Singer proves the
rule here with a comic book sequel that is leaps and bounds better than its
predecessor (which, if you’ll recall, was no slouch). Unfettered by the necessity to introduce the
characters and their world, Singer dives headlong into the central problem of
acceptance by pitting the X-Men against military bureaucrat William Stryker
(Brian Cox), whose policy of indiscriminate mutant genocide unites heroes and
villains. Everything successful about
the original stands here, as well, turned up to 11; the acting excels, from
McKellen as caged animal Magneto to newcomer Cox, whose performance drips sadistic
menace with each drawled consonant. The
cast of characters is beefed up a little, but never disproportionately beyond
what the film can handle and never without significant narrative and thematic
purpose; each addition deepens rather than overfills. X2,
perhaps more than its antecedent, operates on the level of metaphor, something
I really want my superhero films to do.
Here the metaphor is on the nature of intolerance, which Singer carries
off without being overbearing; in one standout scene, among my favorites in the
trilogy, a mutant’s mother asks, “Have you tried not being a mutant?” It’s an oddly quiet moment in a summer
blockbuster, but it’s one that reminds us what’s at stake behind the flash of
optic blasts and the snikt of razor
claws. Bonus points for its clever link
with Stryker’s abuse of his own mutant son, which reminds us that bigotry isn’t
a spectrum. Even the previous film’s
villain recognizes this, and McKellen’s nuanced return is a more than welcome
one.
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) – When Singer
stepped aside from his pet franchise to direct Superman Returns, Brett Ratner stepped in. It’s a series of bad decisions that led to a pair
of lackluster films (more on Superman
Returns later), which is a shame because there are obvious moments where X-Men 3 is on the right track and other
moments when it obviously goes awry. The
introduction of the “mutant cure” is in many ways a perfect end to a trilogy
about what to do about heterogeneity, but Ratner seems to overcompensate for getting
a shot at the X-Men toy box by cramming the film with scores of new characters
who don’t do much at all. (Ask yourself
how many of their names you can remember.)
Worse, the film kills off some of the more interesting characters very
early on, presumably to make room for the new faces, but for my money the film
never really recovers from (spoiler warning) the death of Professor X. The film trades in clichés, as when a
military drill sergeant is played by R. Lee Ermey or when a character repeats,
dead serious, the bromide about a woman scorned. The climax is among the better action
sequences in the trilogy, if only on a purely visceral level; Magneto’s
manipulation of the Golden Gate Bridge is a brilliant visual, and the execution
of the “fastball special” is as fun on film as it is on panel. But the film fumbles so much before that
point – and butchers the “Dark Phoenix” plotline almost beyond recognition –
that X-Men 3 tries to be too much and
ultimately never succeeds at being much at all.
The trilogy deserved better.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!
X-Men (2000) – In
many ways, we comic book movie fans owe a lot to Bryan Singer, who demonstrated
in this film that the genre was a viable one beyond the self-parody of the
Schumacher era. Singer wisely opts to
throw viewers into the midst of the mythology without a lengthy origin
sequence; we join Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Rogue (Anna Paquin) as they meet
the X-Men, a group of powerful mutants led by Professor X (Patrick Stewart) in
opposition to the evil Magneto (Ian McKellen).
Using Wolverine and Rogue as entry points is genius; diehard fans
already love Wolverine, and newcomers will find Jackman one of the more
engaging comics-to-film translations.
But the film is populated by fantastic actors – including Halle Berry,
who doesn’t do much but does it well – and none are more brilliant than Stewart
and McKellen, who as dueling foes are more Shakespeare than Stan Lee (who
cameos, by the way – his first in a Marvel movie). Even James Marsden, who’s usual more
milquetoast than Patrick Wilson, proves a good fit as the stick-in-the-mud
Cyclops. As director, Singer does a great
job making the soap opera source material accessible and streamlined without
sacrificing the emotional complexity of the characters; there are hundreds of
X-Men, but Singer picks the big ones and never loses sight of the fact that their
interactions are more interesting than the giant machine Magneto builds for the
surreal climax of the film. Above all,
this is a film that feels real, that winks
not ironically but lovingly at its source material, acknowledging its depth
without overloading its audience.
X2: X-Men United (2003) – Singer proves the
rule here with a comic book sequel that is leaps and bounds better than its
predecessor (which, if you’ll recall, was no slouch). Unfettered by the necessity to introduce the
characters and their world, Singer dives headlong into the central problem of
acceptance by pitting the X-Men against military bureaucrat William Stryker
(Brian Cox), whose policy of indiscriminate mutant genocide unites heroes and
villains. Everything successful about
the original stands here, as well, turned up to 11; the acting excels, from
McKellen as caged animal Magneto to newcomer Cox, whose performance drips sadistic
menace with each drawled consonant. The
cast of characters is beefed up a little, but never disproportionately beyond
what the film can handle and never without significant narrative and thematic
purpose; each addition deepens rather than overfills. X2,
perhaps more than its antecedent, operates on the level of metaphor, something
I really want my superhero films to do.
Here the metaphor is on the nature of intolerance, which Singer carries
off without being overbearing; in one standout scene, among my favorites in the
trilogy, a mutant’s mother asks, “Have you tried not being a mutant?” It’s an oddly quiet moment in a summer
blockbuster, but it’s one that reminds us what’s at stake behind the flash of
optic blasts and the snikt of razor
claws. Bonus points for its clever link
with Stryker’s abuse of his own mutant son, which reminds us that bigotry isn’t
a spectrum. Even the previous film’s
villain recognizes this, and McKellen’s nuanced return is a more than welcome
one.
X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006) – When Singer
stepped aside from his pet franchise to direct Superman Returns, Brett Ratner stepped in. It’s a series of bad decisions that led to a pair
of lackluster films (more on Superman
Returns later), which is a shame because there are obvious moments where X-Men 3 is on the right track and other
moments when it obviously goes awry. The
introduction of the “mutant cure” is in many ways a perfect end to a trilogy
about what to do about heterogeneity, but Ratner seems to overcompensate for getting
a shot at the X-Men toy box by cramming the film with scores of new characters
who don’t do much at all. (Ask yourself
how many of their names you can remember.)
Worse, the film kills off some of the more interesting characters very
early on, presumably to make room for the new faces, but for my money the film
never really recovers from (spoiler warning) the death of Professor X. The film trades in clichés, as when a
military drill sergeant is played by R. Lee Ermey or when a character repeats,
dead serious, the bromide about a woman scorned. The climax is among the better action
sequences in the trilogy, if only on a purely visceral level; Magneto’s
manipulation of the Golden Gate Bridge is a brilliant visual, and the execution
of the “fastball special” is as fun on film as it is on panel. But the film fumbles so much before that
point – and butchers the “Dark Phoenix” plotline almost beyond recognition –
that X-Men 3 tries to be too much and
ultimately never succeeds at being much at all.
The trilogy deserved better.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday at the Movies - July 30, 2012
Welcome to Week Twenty-Eight of “Monday at the Movies.” A few romantic comedies on tap this week, plus
a film so disturbing I feel uncomfortable saying I enjoyed it.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
– A long, long time ago, I directed readers to an essay by David Bordwell in
which he draws the distinction between an excellent film and a film that is to
one’s liking. I invoke Bordwell here
because I think he might be the key to my take on Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange; it’s a great film,
certainly, excellent by technical standards and one of Kubrick’s more
accomplished films, but it’s entirely different to “like” on a purely
evaluative level. For one, its
protagonist Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell in the epitome of a career-making
performance) is a brutal sadist who spends his evenings raping and engaging in “ultra-violence.” Perhaps worse, Kubrick’s filmmaking attempts
to get us to sympathize with – and even like – Alex, a disconcerting
premise once you realize what’s afoot. I’m
probably in the minority on this one, but I usually find Kubrick a bit...
boring; Dr. Strangelove is, I admit,
genius, but I’ve never been able to watch 2001
or The Shining in one sitting because
they seem plodding and aimless – which may be the point, perhaps, but they’re just
not “to my liking.” (The first hour of Full Metal Jacket, though, is brilliant.) But here Kubrick displays his ability to keep
a scene moving even if the camera is stationary, and though much of the film is
repulsive on a moral level, it’s transfixing on an aesthetic one, helped in no
small part by the quirky yet unspeakably evil performance McDowell turns in.
Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)
– I’m on record as not being the world’s biggest Steve Carell fan, and Crazy, Stupid, Love does very little to
swing me in the other direction. Which
is not to say that the film isn’t enjoyable – halfway far from it. I say halfway because there are really two
movies going on in Crazy, Stupid, Love
(one, it seems for each unnecessary comma in the title): in one, divorcee Steve Carell tries life
without his wife Julianne Moore, while in the other his womanizing wingman Ryan
Gosling reforms his ways after meeting girl-of-his-dreams Emma Stone. As is usually the case with these kinds of
films, it’s the latter plot, the supporting one, that succeeds far more than
the former. The problem, perhaps, is that
Carell is too real as a man who’s had his heart ripped out; just when the supposed
comedy is getting to the funny bits, Carell mopes into frame with his sad-sack
character to remind us just how miserable he is. It’s a shame, because Gosling and Stone are
so talented and so charismatic together that one wishes for a movie revolving
solely around them. As a consequence of
being so schizophrenic, the film’s message is a mixed one – is love possible or
not? Or is it merely difficult but
worthwhile? If the latter, tell me
something I don’t know. Aside from the
Gosling/Stone scenes, I will credit the film with a rather clever third act
twist, something I didn’t know to see coming.
Friends with Benefits
(2011) – Remember that time that the two leads from Black Swan starred in separate movies about casual sex? I certainly do, but after seeing Natalie
Portman in No Strings Attached (with an
uninspiring Ashton Kutcher as her co-lead) I wasn’t exactly ready to join Mila
Kunis and Justin Timberlake in Friends
with Benefits. Turns out the joke
was on me, because Friends with Benefits
is by far the better of this odd couple.
Director Will Gluck, who made such a winner out of Easy A with Emma Stone, creates a solidly funny film here, which is
by and large victorious thanks to the infectious chemistry between Kunis and
Timberlake; their characters are likeable from the first, and – pivotally for a
comedy film – they’re funny, too. Also
back from Easy A is Patricia
Clarkson, who reprises her role as the kooky and sexually liberated mother,
this time of Kunis’s character. The only
part of the equation that doesn’t fit is Richard Jenkins as Timberlake’s
Alzheimer’s-afflicted father, whose outbursts lead not to comic relief but to
unexpectedly heartfelt pathos. While the
film falls prey to the clichés of the romantic comedy genre, it does so more
credibly than No Strings Attached,
without asking us to cry for the protagonists when their bizarre experiment
complicates itself. Wisely, the film remembers
that we have to like our characters in order to want to see them together, and Gluck
and company – particularly his leads – achieve both by leaps and bounds.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
– A long, long time ago, I directed readers to an essay by David Bordwell in
which he draws the distinction between an excellent film and a film that is to
one’s liking. I invoke Bordwell here
because I think he might be the key to my take on Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange; it’s a great film,
certainly, excellent by technical standards and one of Kubrick’s more
accomplished films, but it’s entirely different to “like” on a purely
evaluative level. For one, its
protagonist Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell in the epitome of a career-making
performance) is a brutal sadist who spends his evenings raping and engaging in “ultra-violence.” Perhaps worse, Kubrick’s filmmaking attempts
to get us to sympathize with – and even like – Alex, a disconcerting
premise once you realize what’s afoot. I’m
probably in the minority on this one, but I usually find Kubrick a bit...
boring; Dr. Strangelove is, I admit,
genius, but I’ve never been able to watch 2001
or The Shining in one sitting because
they seem plodding and aimless – which may be the point, perhaps, but they’re just
not “to my liking.” (The first hour of Full Metal Jacket, though, is brilliant.) But here Kubrick displays his ability to keep
a scene moving even if the camera is stationary, and though much of the film is
repulsive on a moral level, it’s transfixing on an aesthetic one, helped in no
small part by the quirky yet unspeakably evil performance McDowell turns in.
Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)
– I’m on record as not being the world’s biggest Steve Carell fan, and Crazy, Stupid, Love does very little to
swing me in the other direction. Which
is not to say that the film isn’t enjoyable – halfway far from it. I say halfway because there are really two
movies going on in Crazy, Stupid, Love
(one, it seems for each unnecessary comma in the title): in one, divorcee Steve Carell tries life
without his wife Julianne Moore, while in the other his womanizing wingman Ryan
Gosling reforms his ways after meeting girl-of-his-dreams Emma Stone. As is usually the case with these kinds of
films, it’s the latter plot, the supporting one, that succeeds far more than
the former. The problem, perhaps, is that
Carell is too real as a man who’s had his heart ripped out; just when the supposed
comedy is getting to the funny bits, Carell mopes into frame with his sad-sack
character to remind us just how miserable he is. It’s a shame, because Gosling and Stone are
so talented and so charismatic together that one wishes for a movie revolving
solely around them. As a consequence of
being so schizophrenic, the film’s message is a mixed one – is love possible or
not? Or is it merely difficult but
worthwhile? If the latter, tell me
something I don’t know. Aside from the
Gosling/Stone scenes, I will credit the film with a rather clever third act
twist, something I didn’t know to see coming.
Friends with Benefits
(2011) – Remember that time that the two leads from Black Swan starred in separate movies about casual sex? I certainly do, but after seeing Natalie
Portman in No Strings Attached (with an
uninspiring Ashton Kutcher as her co-lead) I wasn’t exactly ready to join Mila
Kunis and Justin Timberlake in Friends
with Benefits. Turns out the joke
was on me, because Friends with Benefits
is by far the better of this odd couple.
Director Will Gluck, who made such a winner out of Easy A with Emma Stone, creates a solidly funny film here, which is
by and large victorious thanks to the infectious chemistry between Kunis and
Timberlake; their characters are likeable from the first, and – pivotally for a
comedy film – they’re funny, too. Also
back from Easy A is Patricia
Clarkson, who reprises her role as the kooky and sexually liberated mother,
this time of Kunis’s character. The only
part of the equation that doesn’t fit is Richard Jenkins as Timberlake’s
Alzheimer’s-afflicted father, whose outbursts lead not to comic relief but to
unexpectedly heartfelt pathos. While the
film falls prey to the clichés of the romantic comedy genre, it does so more
credibly than No Strings Attached,
without asking us to cry for the protagonists when their bizarre experiment
complicates itself. Wisely, the film remembers
that we have to like our characters in order to want to see them together, and Gluck
and company – particularly his leads – achieve both by leaps and bounds.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Not that it’s a bad film, by any stretch of the imagination. We’re not looking at another Batman & Robin or even Superman III; in fact, it’s even better than the last two-thirds of Spider-Man 3. There is much that The Amazing Spider-Man does right, but it’s bogged down by pulled punches and an overreliance on attempting to distance itself from the Raimi trilogy.
From frame one, the focus is on Peter Parker (Garfield) and not Spider-Man; we learn more about his parents, who died under mysterious circumstances, and he doesn’t don the costume for what feels like a very long time (more on that later). He romances classmate and science intern Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) in what must be the most awkward courtship ever while Oscorp’s desperate herpetologist Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) seeks to stabilize his reptilian vaccination against human weakness.
In a post-Dark Knight Rises world, remembering the value of hope, I’m going to close this review with a consideration of what succeeds in The Amazing Spider-Man, but first, the bad news.
First and foremost, the film feels overly long; at two hours and sixteen minutes, it’s the shortest of the Big Three this summer (The Avengers 2:23 and The Dark Knight Rises 2:47), but it doesn’t feel like it, mostly because the film takes a very long time to get started. While there is much about the film that is original, a lot of it feels very familiar; it’s only been ten years since the first Spider-Man film, and though there are minor changes to the origin story it’s mostly intact from before. You can even see the filmmakers trying to swim around the original when Uncle Ben (played with quiet graceful authority, as always, by Martin Sheen) talks in circuitous language in an attempt not to say the exact words “With great power comes great responsibility.” While the film, as a remake, can’t rely on what went before, the attempts to distance itself focus too much on cosmetic details and not on retelling the story in a significant way.
As a consequence of this over-familiarity, the film feels as though nothing’s happening. The interesting plotline of Richard and May Parker is abandoned early on, apparently on reserve for a sequel; while I understand the desire to build a franchise, this thread might have sufficiently distanced Webb’s interpretation from Raimi’s, as the Parkers were entirely absent from the earlier trilogy. Instead we get an Uncle Ben who’s only in the film to die; Sheen, though as good a choice as Cliff Roberston, is an actor whose skill is squandered. (As Aunt May, Sally Field is an expected disappointment; her teary performance feels stilted and a poor substitute for the moving Rosemary Harris.) Similarly, the Curt Connors plotline is only interesting insofar as the audience knows he’s going to become The Lizard; audiences who aren’t aware of this plotbeat don’t have any foreshadowing to lean on and may wonder why we’re spending so much time with a one-armed scientist who knows less about the Parkers than Peter thinks he does.
It’s a quest narrative that is abandoned not only by its storytellers but by its protagonist. The film is set up as the story of Peter’s attempts to understand his parents, but when the film stops looking for answers so does Peter. In this respect it’s an even bigger cop-out than the ending of Prometheus – at least in that film someone was still interested in the questions that incited the plot in the first place.
In many ways, the comparison to Prometheus is apt because The Amazing Spider-Man, too, is a weak story told extremely well. Aside from the disorienting POV shots that seem designed to sell videogames rather than put us in Spidey’s shoes, Andrew Garfield is pitch-perfect as Peter Parker and as Spider-Man, capturing the teenager’s innate awkwardness but eminent likeability while also mastering the graceful body language of the hero, in flight and fight; he puts the friendly back in "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." You won’t be surprised to hear that my opinion of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is similarly high; it’s no wonder she’s Peter’s first great love, a connection fostered not by the script they’re given but by the chemistry they develop. It’s perhaps too convenient that she’s an intern at the one place where a friend of Spider-Man is needed, but she ably executes her main function in the script – the love interest, the damsel sans distress (she saves Spidey’s keister at least twice in moments that mercifully don’t feel shoehorned in by the PC Police).
As for Ifans, he’s an oddball choice by virtue of being a master oddball. His descent into schizophrenia – in which Webb finally masters a comic book’s use of internal dialogue by employing voiceover smartly – recalls his expertly creepy turn in Enduring Love, and his scenes as The Lizard (assisted, of course, by CGI) create a foe that is successfully unlike anything from the Raimi trilogy. While The Lizard was teased by the appearance of Dylan Baker as Dr. Connors in the Raimi films, this Lizard is a foe worth fighting, with a bizarre plan that never feels out-of-place thanks to the film’s clear translation that the once-good doctor is losing his mind.
And Marc Webb, known for his directorial debut on (500) Days of Summer, demonstrates that he’s aptly named, since he gets inside of Spider-Man’s head and directs the action in an efficient manner. He handles the romantic plot better in some ways, since the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is so tangible that it salvages a somewhat clumsy and unenthusiastic screenplay in that regard. While it’s hard not to get a good movie out of one as well-performed as this one, it’s significant that Webb’s only apparent misstep is the odd and uneven use of POV shots when Spidey swings into action; perhaps these looked better in 3D, but that’s a remark a film reviewer should never have to make.
Ultimately, The Amazing Spider-Man is too many films for its own good; the Parkers’ past and the origin story are neglected and uninspiring, respectfully, while The Lizard’s arc is the best of the three but is introduced as a distraction before becoming the main plot. But none of these films are told poorly; the actors are gifted, the effects dazzling. What redeems this film is that it’s just good enough to suggest that a sequel might be truly great; now that the obligatory ground has been walked, the franchise can move in a new direction with a cast that embodies Stan Lee’s original stories perhaps better than Raimi’s crew ever did.
Who knows? When all’s said and done, the sequel could even rival Spider-Man 2.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Monday at the Movies - July 23, 2012
Welcome to Week Twenty-Seven of “Monday at the Movies.” After
a Batman-heavy week last week, we’re going to shift gears dramatically this
week and spend the day with a few animated Superman movies, all adapted from
recent comics storylines (all of which are worth reading).
All-Star Superman (2011)
– This is a difficult film for me to review, and so I’ll say up front that your
results may vary. I’m a huge fan of the
Grant Morrison/Frank Quitely series from which this film is adapted, and the
film is a very faithful adaptation with many of the book’s highlights included
(my favorite, alas, didn’t make the cut).
That said, I recognize that the film has structural problems endemic to
the source material; rather than a unified story, the film feels like a series
of vignettes starring the same characters.
There’s an ongoing plot holding the vignettes together – Superman is
dying – but viewers may be turned off by the somewhat fragmented storytelling
(though, again, the late Dwayne McDuffie did a marvelous job adapting the 12-issue
source material). While this isn’t the classic
voice cast we know and love (see the last two reviews of this post), James
Denton is surprisingly heartfelt as the Man of Steel, embodying the heavy
emotional burden that comes with being a dying savior, while Anthony LaPaglia does
a Lex Luthor dripping with hatred for his enemy; LaPaglia is no Clancy Brown,
but he’s a solid fill-in. The surprise
success, though, is Christina Hendricks as Lois Lane, who handles the character’s
trademark snark with aplomb but, like Denton, hits the pathos when needed. And for a superhero film that brings a tear
to the corner of your eye, All-Star
Superman might just be the most successful Superman movie of our lifetime.
Superman/Batman:
Public Enemies (2009) – Public
Enemies is iconic in every sense of the word, and while I wasn’t overly
enamored with it the first time I saw it, I’ve found a lot to appreciate in a
film that is far more than the mere slugfest for which I initially mistook it. This film reunites Tim Daly and Kevin Conroy
as Superman and Batman, the first extended team-up since 1996’s The Batman/Superman Movie; for good
measure, Clancy Brown returns as President Lex Luthor, who uses his new political
power to seek revenge against his caped foes when a Kryptonite meteor enters
Earth’s atmosphere. I could spend pages
falling over in a dead faint over the strength of the voice cast, but if you’ve
read my blog for more than a day you know that for me these are, simply put,
the definitive voices of the DC Universe.
Adapted from the Jeph Loeb/Ed McGuinness series, Public Enemies is admittedly light on plot, with waves of
supervillains assaulting our costumed protagonists, and a few plotlines have
been streamlined for the abbreviated direct-to-video format (gone is any
mention of Batman reopening his parents’ murder). But what the film lacks in narrative substance,
it makes up in thematic depth. This film
– especially the first twenty or so minutes – gets at the heart of the modern
Superman/Batman team-up story by showing how unlikely it is that these two radically
different types would ever work together, then demonstrating just why the
partnership works. It’s one built on
mutual respect and understanding – perhaps begrudgingly so at times, on Batman’s
part – and the chemistry between Daly and Conroy atones for any of the film’s
missteps. It’s unlikely we’ll see these
two on the big screen any time soon, but Public
Enemies fills that spot nicely.
Superman/Batman:
Apocalypse (2010) – Apocalypse is
misleading, and consequently disappointing, on several very important
levels. In short, Apocalypse is a sequel to Public
Enemies that picks up on the Kryptonite meteor, revealed to contain another
survivor from Superman’s doomed homeworld – his cousin Supergirl. For one, what seems like executive sexism
prompted the title to be changed from Superman/Batman:
Supergirl, which is a shame because the original title much more accurately
reflected what the film truly is – a Superman film in which Big Blue meets his Kryptonian
cousin with Batman caught in the middle; Batman’s very much a supporting player
in this film until the very end, so the inclusion of Supergirl might come as a
surprise to unsuspecting viewers.
Secondly, the film goes to great lengths to reunite Tim Daly and Kevin Conroy
with Susan Eisenberg as Wonder Woman, but principal villain Darkseid is voiced
by newcomer Andre Braugher, who brings almost no gravitas or personality to the
role. Indeed, Braugher is barely threatening
as the ostensible god of evil, a sad step down from Michael Ironside’s voice as
gravelly as the mad god’s craggy face.
As for Summer Glau as Supergirl, she’s spunky and endearing, and the
film gratefully straightens out the murky origin she had in the comics; it’s
just a shame that she didn’t have a better vehicle to headline as the Maid of
Steel. What we have is perfectly
serviceable and not a colossal waste of time like Superman: Doomsday, but it likely won’t hold much for viewers who
aren’t already fans of the source material.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week! But stay tuned for Wednesday's review (finally) of The Amazing Spider-Man!
All-Star Superman (2011)
– This is a difficult film for me to review, and so I’ll say up front that your
results may vary. I’m a huge fan of the
Grant Morrison/Frank Quitely series from which this film is adapted, and the
film is a very faithful adaptation with many of the book’s highlights included
(my favorite, alas, didn’t make the cut).
That said, I recognize that the film has structural problems endemic to
the source material; rather than a unified story, the film feels like a series
of vignettes starring the same characters.
There’s an ongoing plot holding the vignettes together – Superman is
dying – but viewers may be turned off by the somewhat fragmented storytelling
(though, again, the late Dwayne McDuffie did a marvelous job adapting the 12-issue
source material). While this isn’t the classic
voice cast we know and love (see the last two reviews of this post), James
Denton is surprisingly heartfelt as the Man of Steel, embodying the heavy
emotional burden that comes with being a dying savior, while Anthony LaPaglia does
a Lex Luthor dripping with hatred for his enemy; LaPaglia is no Clancy Brown,
but he’s a solid fill-in. The surprise
success, though, is Christina Hendricks as Lois Lane, who handles the character’s
trademark snark with aplomb but, like Denton, hits the pathos when needed. And for a superhero film that brings a tear
to the corner of your eye, All-Star
Superman might just be the most successful Superman movie of our lifetime.
Superman/Batman:
Public Enemies (2009) – Public
Enemies is iconic in every sense of the word, and while I wasn’t overly
enamored with it the first time I saw it, I’ve found a lot to appreciate in a
film that is far more than the mere slugfest for which I initially mistook it. This film reunites Tim Daly and Kevin Conroy
as Superman and Batman, the first extended team-up since 1996’s The Batman/Superman Movie; for good
measure, Clancy Brown returns as President Lex Luthor, who uses his new political
power to seek revenge against his caped foes when a Kryptonite meteor enters
Earth’s atmosphere. I could spend pages
falling over in a dead faint over the strength of the voice cast, but if you’ve
read my blog for more than a day you know that for me these are, simply put,
the definitive voices of the DC Universe.
Adapted from the Jeph Loeb/Ed McGuinness series, Public Enemies is admittedly light on plot, with waves of
supervillains assaulting our costumed protagonists, and a few plotlines have
been streamlined for the abbreviated direct-to-video format (gone is any
mention of Batman reopening his parents’ murder). But what the film lacks in narrative substance,
it makes up in thematic depth. This film
– especially the first twenty or so minutes – gets at the heart of the modern
Superman/Batman team-up story by showing how unlikely it is that these two radically
different types would ever work together, then demonstrating just why the
partnership works. It’s one built on
mutual respect and understanding – perhaps begrudgingly so at times, on Batman’s
part – and the chemistry between Daly and Conroy atones for any of the film’s
missteps. It’s unlikely we’ll see these
two on the big screen any time soon, but Public
Enemies fills that spot nicely.
Superman/Batman:
Apocalypse (2010) – Apocalypse is
misleading, and consequently disappointing, on several very important
levels. In short, Apocalypse is a sequel to Public
Enemies that picks up on the Kryptonite meteor, revealed to contain another
survivor from Superman’s doomed homeworld – his cousin Supergirl. For one, what seems like executive sexism
prompted the title to be changed from Superman/Batman:
Supergirl, which is a shame because the original title much more accurately
reflected what the film truly is – a Superman film in which Big Blue meets his Kryptonian
cousin with Batman caught in the middle; Batman’s very much a supporting player
in this film until the very end, so the inclusion of Supergirl might come as a
surprise to unsuspecting viewers.
Secondly, the film goes to great lengths to reunite Tim Daly and Kevin Conroy
with Susan Eisenberg as Wonder Woman, but principal villain Darkseid is voiced
by newcomer Andre Braugher, who brings almost no gravitas or personality to the
role. Indeed, Braugher is barely threatening
as the ostensible god of evil, a sad step down from Michael Ironside’s voice as
gravelly as the mad god’s craggy face.
As for Summer Glau as Supergirl, she’s spunky and endearing, and the
film gratefully straightens out the murky origin she had in the comics; it’s
just a shame that she didn’t have a better vehicle to headline as the Maid of
Steel. What we have is perfectly
serviceable and not a colossal waste of time like Superman: Doomsday, but it likely won’t hold much for viewers who
aren’t already fans of the source material.
That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week! But stay tuned for Wednesday's review (finally) of The Amazing Spider-Man!
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Heroes, Hope, and The Dark Knight Rises
I am not writing a news piece; I was not there. I am not writing a vitriolic condemnation; it is superfluous. I am not purporting to know the truth; likely, sadly, it cannot be known. But what is known is this: without trivializing the events in Aurora, filmgoers were attacked by a man who represents everything that The Dark Knight Rises asks us to reject – tyranny, terrorism, and hopelessness.
I wish to be empirically clear. I do not wish to claim that Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy is a tool to combat such evil (I will not name him – his alleged alias, “The Joker,” tells us all we need to know about this madman). Rather, these events illustrate in a very tangible and tragic way the precise “point” of the trilogy, which the media in its bloodlust has steadfastly refused to acknowledge. Again, I do not wish to belittle by this comparison; rather, I want to explore the ways in which media coverage of the events in Aurora entirely overlook the reality of this devastating moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)