The Dark Knight (2008)

Feb 262008
 
three reels

District attorney—and current boyfriend of Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal taking over for Katie Holmes)—Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), is the new star of Gotham City. He joins with Lieutenant Gordon and Batman to take down the mob by targeting their banking. The mob strikes back by unleashing the Joker (Heath Ledger), whose desire for anarchy is not what they intended and throws the city into chaos.

The Dark Knight is an amazing and influential film. It is also one of the most overrated movies in the history of cinema. It’s good. It just isn’t that good. It’s clever, but flawed, and like its predecessor, lets its theme overwhelm its plot. Poor Batman is overwhelmed as well. In Nolan’s first entry, Batman finally got to be the lead in his own picture, standing above the villains, but now that’s over. He’s pale compared to Two-Face; compared to the Joker he’s invisible. I guess being invisible is better than dragging down the film as Rachel does. Even portrayed by a better actress, the character is self-righteous, false, and annoying. Perhaps Nolan doesn’t know how to create a female character. Certainly his films are sausage-fests.

A two hour treatises on the meaning of heroism, The Dark Knight is essentially Harvey Dent’s story, yet Harvey gets less screen time than the Joker and little more than Gordon. For plot and theme, the Joker could be replaced in the story. Even Batman could be written out. Harvey is what matters. In which case, I’d expect to spend a whole lot more time with him. But then this is a movie that adds globe-trotting for the caped crusader simply because it looks cool. I suspect the same reasoning explains the Joker’s dominance over Dent—the Joker is just cooler.

Even with the strange structure, Nolan stepped up his game. The Dark Knight is a complicated, layered movie. And except for an incomprehensible decision at the end (which works for the theme, but is beyond stupid for the story) the myriad plot threats knit together in a satisfying manner.

Of course the Joker rules this film, which is a double edged sword. He easily sweeps in the viewer—well, me anyway. His gags are funny (and wow, does this film need something funny), and his weird, lip-licking, twitching, hunched mannerisms are hypnotic. He’s not a character, but an archetype. He’s the personification of chaos: a big budget Michael Myers. That works great for Batman, except this time we’re supposed to take this all realistically. These are supposed to be real people in a real world. And Ledger doesn’t attempt to grant the Joker any connection to reality. Harvey Dent could be a real man, flawed to start as most men are, and twisted as he is broken. The Joker is just weird. I like weird, but does it fit?

The Dark Knight is a preachy drama masquerading as an action film. In an action film, I should care more about who is hitting whom. And for a drama, I should see fewer men in rubber.

 Overrated Films, Reviews, Superhero Tagged with:

The Orphanage (2007)

Oct 112007
 
two reels

Laura (Belén Rueda) returns to the now-abandoned orphanage where she was raised, planning to reopen it for special needs children. The area seems to have an odd effect on her son, Simón, who picks up a lot of imaginary friends, one of whom tells him he’s adopted and HIV positive. When Simón disappears, the police suspect a kidnapping, possibly related to the strange old woman who tried to pass herself off as a social worker, but Laura suspects ghosts: Dead children have taken her son and are now playing a game with his life.

It’s as if we’ve all been invited to Guillermo del Toro’s slightly less talented younger brother’s bar mitzvah. But the new guy is still clutching to his older siblings leg…and plot. If you’ve been knocking yourself out trying to figure what to put between The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth on your DVD shelf, this is your lucky day (well, it will be when The Orphanage is released on disk). It feels like del Toro, it sounds like del Toro, and it looks…well, pretty good, but not quite as good as del Toro.

Music video director J.A. Bayona got a producing and inspirational boost from the previously mentioned del Toro, allowing him to make an often scary, horror fantasy. Like The Devil’s Backbone, it takes place in an orphanage and involves the ghosts of children and a past tragedy. Like both The Devil’s Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth, the supernatural elements could be real or everything could be explained naturally. And, again like  The Devil’s Backbone, the story drags in the middle and the major characters are underdeveloped, distancing, or irritating, and behave in often unbelievable ways.

What The Orphanage has that it can call its own are some nice frights. The preview theater was filled with screams and uncomfortable laughter. It was a bit much for my taste, with everything that happened on screen accompanied by blaring music or crashing sound effects. The twelfth time the big scare was nothing more than a door swinging in the breeze, I began to check my watch. Still, I shouldn’t get to critical; most horror movies have no scares. If most of those in The Orphanage turned out to be connected to trivial matters, that’s still better than none at all.

I feel less compulsion to be civil about the “is it a ghost or is it a fantasy?” storyline. This has been done far too many times, and while it may be the current darling of the art house crowd, it leaves me cold. I’m stuck watching scene after scene where the protagonist’s sanity is questioned, and since the filmmakers want it both ways, no answer means a whole lot. I suppose that would have been easier to take if I liked her or cared about her son. Bayona and company do nothing to make that happen. They just assume the viewer will sympathize with a mourning mother and get on with making loud thumping noises. Well, I’m more cold-hearted than that, at least when it comes to cinematic mothers.

At least Laura has a character, even if its one of little interest. Her poor husband is the real ghost of the film, floating in and out of scenes with nothing to do. I have to wonder if they decided to cut him out of the script (a clever decision) and then never finished the re-write.

I’m dwelling on the negatives, while hardly mentioning the positives (acting, cinematography, even the predictable but fun mystery) because the positives don’t help; they just raise my level of frustration.  I hate it when quality work is wasted. I left the theater disappointed, and I suspect, so will you.

 Foreign Language, Ghost Stories, Reviews Tagged with:

Zodiac (2007)

Oct 062007
 
two reels

Based on ex-cartoonist Robert Graysmith’s book detailing his experiences in tracking the Zodiac killer, the film follows police inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards), reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), and Graysmith himself (Jake Gyllenhaal) as they all try to find the murderer.  As the Zodiac taunts them with letters and codes, the stress of the case takes its toll on each man.


Patrick Roberts, a filmmaker attending the same pre-screening as I, said it best: “Seeing Zodiac is like watching a book.”  That book, by the way, isn’t a narrative; it’s a bound spreadsheet of facts.  It’s hard to find a film that dumps more information on the viewer.  Much of it goes nowhere, and no conclusion is reached, but then, that’s not the point.  This isn’t a detective story about catching a murderer or a thriller about avoiding becoming his next victim (although the advertisements would have you believe otherwise).  It is a movie about the strain felt by the investigators of the first mass-media serial killer.

If you aren’t aware of the case, a man calling himself The Zodiac killed somewhere between six and twenty people over several decades starting in 1969. He sent notes to newspapers and the police, promising greater crimes (that he didn’t commit) and confessing not only to his own deeds but to those of others.  He also sent ciphers.  He was never caught.  There was a suspect, based on circumstantial evidence, who died of a heart attack, but thinking it was him comes from our natural tendency to want to tie up our stories.  This is a tale that never ended, but faded away.  No one knows the killer’s motivation and his victims seemed to have been chosen at random.  In 2002, the case was made “inactive” by the SFPD.

So, here we have a two and a half hour movie, covering years, in which very little happens, no main character is ever in real danger, and in the end, it all comes to nothing.  That doesn’t sound promising, but this is the best movie of its type you’re likely to find (if there are others).  It is strangely compelling.  It should be boring, but it isn’t.  At times, when a character would once again go through a pile of papers, searching for some clue that would break the case open, I felt like I was doing my taxes, but that my taxes were of great importance and needed, desperately, to be filed now.  We’re talking about a pretty absorbing tax return.

Ruffalo and Edwards are believable as stoic policeman.  While the focus is the inspectors’ work, they are rounded characters.  We don’t see their lives outside of police duties, but there is never any doubt that such lives exist.  For the middle hour, the film is a procedural and Ruffalo carries it.  His inspector Toschi isn’t a superman or particularly exciting.  He’s an average-Joe homicide detective, doing a tough job, day-in and day-out, and we’re carried along.

While the movie avoids flash or magic, Downey Jr. manages to sneak some in.  He is fantastic as slightly elitist reporter Paul Avery, but then it is the best part.  He’s the only one who gets any jokes.  I’d love to see a string of ’40s-era detective comedies with Downey playing a similar character.

The one failure is Graysmith, who isn’t convincing as a human, which is odd since the real Graysmith wrote the book the movie is taken from.  Partly, it is Gyllenhaal’s sleepy performance, but the problem is with the role.  He’s a one-dimensional obsessed nerd, but we’re never let in on his obsession.  Why does he feel compelled to solve the case?  Apparently the real man was outraged by the crimes, but we don’t see that, nor any reason why he would take it personally.  For a character study, we’re given surprisingly little insight into this man.  We aren’t even given closure for his emotional journey, or for that period of his life.  But that’s the case with most of the characters.  Some text pops up on screen at the end, letting us know what happened to them.  That’s not exactly satisfying.

For over two hours this oddly distancing flick kept me and the audience glued to the screen, but the hold began weakening toward the end.  Maybe it’s just too long.  Throughout the movie, titles pop up to state that 3 months or 1 year or 3 years have passed.  When the final one, tossing us over seven years appeared, there were audible sighs, groans, and giggles around me.  Everyone was beginning to understand that we’d been listening to a very long shaggy dog story.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

First Snow (2007)

Oct 062007
 
2.5 reels

Jimmy (Guy Pearce) is a selfish, egotistical salesman who’s always thinking of a way to make that big sale. Then a car accident finds him with time to kill and a fortune teller nearby.  After several of the palm reader’s predictions come true, Jimmy worries that a more dire prophecy could also be accurate: that he won’t live beyond the first snow.


If someone asks you what kinds of films show at film festivals, all you need to do is point at First Snow, an engaging, but slow-as-molasses indie that has a fare amount to say about life, but thinks it has a great deal.  It is well made, but simple, without effects, fancy shots, or much in the way of sets or props.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the film crew came to a small city in New Mexico without warning, asked a few people if they could borrow their homes and business for a couple of hours, shot with no alterations to the rooms, and then took off.

Guy Pearce (L.A. Confidential, Memento) dominates the picture, rarely out of frame. I cannot think of a film with more close-ups of its star. He’s supported admirably—particularly by Piper Perabo who plays Jimmy’s much put upon girlfriend—but no one but Pearce has enough screen time to matter.  Luckily, he’s up for the task, submerging himself into the smarmy life of a man you’d probably be happier not to know.

I didn’t care about Jimmy’s possible demise, though I was fascinated by his growing paranoia that could be rushing him toward death or might have nothing to do with it.  It wasn’t only Jimmy; I didn’t care about anything I saw.  This one grabs you intellectually, not emotionally. Jimmy might die, or he might escape his fate; since everything is so stark, so empty, I don’t see that it makes a difference. That means you shouldn’t expect an uplifting message.

First Snow is a movie you’ll want to watch in a theater.  At home, it is unlikely to beat life’s normal distractions to hold your attention.  See it in the dark, where you’ll have time to be taken in by its world.  Afterwards, you can stop at a nearby coffee house with your friends and discuss what the film meant and how it might pertain to your life.  And then you’ll go home, and sleep, and never watch it again.  It’s just one of those types of movies.

 Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with:

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Oct 062007
 
four reels

Fifteen years ago, a naive barber (Johnny Depp) was falsely imprisoned by a corrupt judge (Alan Rickman) who lusted after his wife. Now, the newly christened Sweeney Todd is back, obsessed with revenge. Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), the maker of the worst pies in London, teams up with Sweeney, who she always loved, with a simple plan for a successful small business: he kills people and she bakes them into pies. Sounds like it should have a happy ending, right?

Blood spraying as a crazed killer sings to his polished razors—not exactly Judy Garland and Gene Kelly. Ah, but it is so Tim Burton, the director with a macabre sense of humor and an eye for exquisite cinematography. Who else could take on Stephen Sondheim’s hit Broadway musical and bring it to the screen in all its throat slicing glory. Who else would get the joke?  Well, a lot of studio accountants are hoping you will.

As should be clear from all my comments about slashing, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is not your average musical. Besides the joyfully morbid plot (if you have problems saying “joyful” and “morbid” in the same sentence, this is probably not the film for you), there is the music, which is thin; the melodies barely exist. That would be a problem if you were staging a Busby Berkeley spectacular, but here it’s part of the fun. This is really an operetta, where people sing when they would speak in a more mundane universe. Is that odd? Not in the de-saturated, twisted, theatrical world that Burton has created. Normal conversation just wouldn’t fit in.

Long time collaborator Johnny Depp, who has so often given Burton gentle souls to toss into the grinder, has found his dark side, channeling simultaneously Jack The Ripper and a vicious clown.  He’s powerful, scary, and so very sad. I can’t conceive of an actor who could have done it besides Depp. Add another gloriously weird character to his resume. He’s in surprisingly good voice as well.

Helena Bonham Carter is a friendly Mrs. Lovett, easier to empathize with than Sweeney (if you empathize with the man with the straight razors, please seek psychological help immediately). She is perturbed upon seeing the first body, but when she learns that the victim was attempting blackmail, she smiles, knowing that it wasn’t an insane act, but a perfectly reasonable and practical homicide.  Hey, sometimes you just have to kill people. Carter will never win awards for her singing, but in this talk-singy show, she’s charming.

Fans of serious horror should adjust their expectations. This is not The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, even if more blood flows here than there. It is a dark comedy, with emphasis on the “dark”.  Still, there are remarkably emotional moments. That the film is at it’s most stirring during a poignant ballad of love and loss sung to a blade should give you an idea of what you are in for.

While sitting in the dark, hearing soft uneasy giggles and a few gasps from around me, I couldn’t help but label this a “cult film,” though that isn’t a pejorative phrase to me. If it doesn’t ring up big box office, it can play the midnight slot for the next twenty years where no one will tire of it. It is beautiful, but not for the flowers and smiley face crowd.  If you like a little pain with your pleasure, a few tears with your laughter, an equal dose of hatred with your love, and lots and lots of blood, you won’t want to miss Sweeney Todd.

Tim Burton also directed the “genre” features Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989), the tragic fairytale Edward Scissorhands (1990), Batman Returns (1992), the loving tribute to the often-titled “worst director of all time” Ed Wood (1994), Mars Attacks! (1996), Sleepy Hollow (1999), Planet of the Apes (2001), Big Fish (2003), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) and Corpse Bride (2005).  He produced The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), and James and the Giant Peach (1996).

 Musicals, Reviews Tagged with:

Next (2007)

Oct 042007
 
three reels

Cris Johnson (Nicolas Cage) can see two minutes into his own future. Hiding in Las Vegas and attempting to lead a normal life, he finds himself pursued by an FBI agent (Julianne Moore) who wants to use him to stop a nuclear holocaust, as well as by terrorists who think he could be a threat to them. His only interest is in an unknown girl (Jessica Biel) because he can see further into her future than he’s ever been able to with his own.

There isn’t a lot of science in this science fiction thriller, nor are there many answers to the numerous questions it asks, but it does have plenty of action, myriad explosions, an engaging popcorn ride, and Nicolas Cage’s best performance in years. Time after time he’s played the “Nicolas Cage character,” a scruffy, sleepy, and slightly crazed outcast whose mind wanders and whose emotions are often intense but only sometimes related to events around him. He plays this character even when the movie doesn’t call for it.  This time, it does, and it’s no surprise he’s got it down to a science.  It feels as if the part was written for him (and since he was a producer, it was).

Next isn’t sci-fi or magical fantasy. It’s a superhero flick, where the superpower is limited enough that there’s actually a chance that the hero could fail. Sure, seeing two minutes ahead makes it easy to avoid getting shot, but how does it help with things happening far away?  While watching, I found myself playing the “how would I use that power” game, not because I was bored, but because the situations pulled me in.  That’s more than most superhero films can manage.

The trailer promises big calamities and Cris using his gift to avoid them, but the better moments are less life and death and carry substantial humor: Cris walking through a crowded casino, avoiding numerous security guards; Cris attempting to pick up a girl. When you can keep playing a situation over and over, you’ll get it right eventually.

Next isn’t going to be an adventure classic nor is it going to win academy awards. It isn’t saying anything about the human condition or suggesting how you should live your life (unless you thought Spider-Man was deep, in which case this is your new religion).  Next is the first of the summer diversions, where the only goal is to entertain. That it does.

 

Other films based (often very tentatively, like in this case) on the works of science fiction author Philip K. Dick: Blade Runner (1982), Total Recall (1990), Confessions d’un Barjo (1992), Drug-Taking and the Arts (1994), Screamers (1995), Impostor (2002), Minority Report (2002), Paycheck (2003), A Scanner Darkly (2006).

 Reviews, Science Fiction Tagged with:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007)

Oct 012007
 
four reels

Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightly), Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), sorceress Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris), and the resurrected Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) need the aid of a traitorous Far Eastern pirate Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat), to retrieve Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) from Davy Jones’s locker. This is imperative because Jack is one of the nine pirate lords, and all are needed if there is any hope of defeating the alliance of Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Of course, these are pirates, so they aren’t exactly good at cooperation; each man (and woman) plot and scheme to attain their conflicting goals but somehow end up together for one of hell of a finish.

Perpetually loopy Captain Jack Sparrow is back (in a series based on a Disney World ride that features undead pirate skeletons, you didn’t think death would be a deterrent?), as is Elizabeth Swann and the rest of the pirate gang for the biggest and most spectacular film of a summer that’s going to be filled with big, spectacular films. Luckily, this one is also good.

2003’s Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl reinvigorated the Swashbuckler, and didn’t hurt Disney’s bottom line any either.  It was a comedy with action set pieces and a touch of horror breaking up the gags. 2006’s Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest had trouble figuring out what it was. Call it a zany adventure with moments of melodrama dropped in uncomfortably. At World’s End, the final film in the trilogy until the accountants realize how much money is yet to be made, is an epic fantasy adventure, as grand as The Lord of the Rings, or, for you older folks, The Thief of Bagdad. There’s humor—quite a bit—but it exists to set off the sweeping action and exotic locals, not the other way around.

Jam packed with ten or twelve sub plots, At World’s End could easily have been two films, which makes it all the more fun that it’s one. Yes, it’s long at two hours and forty-eight minutes, but the pace is rapid and there are no lulls.  Just stock up with popcorn and pop, and you’ll be fine.

The stunts, swordfights, and ship duels are bigger, more plentiful, and more unlikely than in its overblown predecessor: Captain Jack dukes it out with Davy Jones on the main mast; the undead monkey (named Jack as well) rescues Elizabeth, Will, and Barbossa with a fireworks rocket; two magical ships blast each other at close range as they sink into a maelstrom. It’s all as bombastic as it sounds, but this time it means something. It’s dangerous, and people might (and do) die.

There are a lot of characters, and a few get lost in the mob (remember James Norrington? The movie doesn’t), but some price has to be paid to keep the flick from bogging down. A few story items are given even less time. Apparently it’s easy to bring dead pirate captains back, so there’s no need to say any more than was already mentioned at the end of Dead Man’s Chest. New characters play a role, but don’t come to the theater thinking you’ll see Chow Yun-Fat’s jumping from tree to tree.  He’s a diversion. What we get are a lot of the nearly surrealistic antics of Jack (yup, I said surrealistic, such as a ship of twenty Jacks sailing on a seemingly infinite white plane), the loving rendered pirate clichés of Barbossa, the sexy modern-girl strength of Elizabeth, and the all-grown-up determination of Will (he’s still the stiffest and least humorous member of the bunch, but a few years have transformed Bloom from teen heartthrob into an adult). In a picture this loud, the real surprise is that it’s the characters that count.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t enough CGI to make George Lucas run and hide, but for a change, I can discuss computer effects purely in the positive.  Nothing looks fake and it’s all as magnificent as the ad campaign claims. I’m partial to the icy cavern, but it’s hard to beat the waterfall that surrounds the world. The half-sea creature crew of The Flying Dutchman look better than before, and Davy’s octopus face should be enough to garner another effects Oscar nomination.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End is everything you want from a summer popcorn extravaganza. It’s not a learning experience, but it does have Keira Knightly in a cute Oriental outfit and Johnny Depp talking to two little Johnny Depps who are swinging from his beard. Learning is over-rated. The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise saved the pirate genre (if there was anything to save), and now At World’s End has saved the franchise.

Back to SwashbucklersBack to Fantasy

 Fantasy, Reviews, Swashbucklers Tagged with:

The Golden Compass (2007)

Sep 282007
 
three reels

Reality is made up of many universes, some where a person’s soul is actually inside him. On twelve-year-old Lyra’s (Dakota Blue Richards) world, each person’s soul takes the form of an animal. Lyra’s world is also under the thumb of the Magisterium, which suppresses all knowledge it can’t control, particularly about the mysterious “dust.” Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), Lyra’s inattentive guardian pits himself against the Magisterium in a quest for truth, and takes off for the snowy north. In his absence, the sinister Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) takes Lyra under her wing, but the young girl soon discovers her evil ways and escapes. Teaming up with a gang of ocean traveling Gyptians, an armored talking bear (voiced by Ian McKellen), and an aviator (Sam Elliott), Lyra heads north as well, but on a different mission: to save the children kidnapped by the Magisterium from an unknown fate. Her greatest asset is a golden compass that will answer any question if you know how to ask it, and that only she can read.

It is difficult to consider The Golden Compass in a vacuum, and I admit I can’t do it. It is an elaborate fantasy tale based on a popular series of young adult books (Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy), featuring a youthful hero (heroine) who suddenly discovers magical powers, a dark secret, a prophecy, evil forces, and loads of friends, many lovingly crafted with the latest computer technology. It is a huge film with some new faces and a lot of well known stars. That description could work equally well for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone or The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The audiences for them are the same as well. Luckily, there’s room at the table for another high fantasy adventure, provided it’s a good one. And The Golden Compass is a good one—not great, but good. That’s another way it is like the others.

The strongest point to The Golden Compass is its world: a steam-punk vision, with blimps hovering over Victorian spires. It is always beautiful, even when we leave the impressive cities for snow covered wastes. It never has the feeling of constraint which dogged Narnia. But the look of the world is only a small part of it. The cultures and peoples are worth far more study than a two hour film can afford them. Plus, you’ve got to love a flying, ass-kicking Eva Green as the leader of the witches (good witches that is). The greatest fun comes from the “daemons,” the external souls that accompany everyone except talking bears. Children’s daemons shift from one animal to another until puberty locks them in a single shape (yup, there’s a metaphor or two there if you’re looking). The sharper and more imaginative the child, the more forms the daemon takes. You can imagine that Lyra’s is all over the board. Harm a daemon, and the person feels it, and vica versa. You can also tell how people are feeling, or what they are truly like, by watching their animals. Mrs. Coulter is beautiful and elegant (not difficult for Nicole Kidman to pull off), but one sight of her sidekick and you know her heart’s a dead tomato splot with moldy purple spots.

Easily carrying the story is Dakota Blue Richards, a child actress with skills far beyond her years and experience. She doesn’t get by just by being cute (she certainly is), but by inhabiting the character of Lyra. She was a real find. I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot more of Richards. She is ably backed up with some of the best in the business: Kidman, Ian McKellen, Derek Jacobi, and Christopher Lee. Richards could easily have been lost in such company, but she outshines them all. She’s also supported by Sam Elliott, which is fine for her, but not so good for the film; he’s plays the same kind of friendly “cowboy” he’s portrayed a dozen times before and was tired the first time.

Recent fantasy films, those mentioned above as well as the five hundred pound gorilla in the room, The Lord of the Rings, have astonished viewers with extraordinary special effects, and in that arena, there’s a new champ. The Golden Compass is phenomenal, using the advances made with Narnia as a starting place. It could not have been made even five years ago. A ferret morphs to a cat then to a small flying creature and it’s perfect. A pair of talking, roaring, armor-wearing bears duel to the death and they look like bears, not cuddly humanoids. If it’s a wow factor you want, you won’t be disappointed.

Less impressive is the plot. It never feels important. Lyra’s quest to save a few score children is too small after seeing the scope of the world’s problems, and isn’t personal enough to evoke much emotion. Yes, Lyra has a few friends among the missing; that may give her quest more meat in the book, but onscreen it just doesn’t matter.

Since this is essentially a coming-of-age girl-power story, Lyra needs to be saving the day, but she rarely does. She sets things in motion, but then, far too much like Narnia, is saved by the impeccable timing of the cavalry. Much of the problem comes from the non-standalone nature of the source. The Golden Compass is the introduction to the larger narrative yet to come. Let’s hope the two sequels are green-lit. As with The Lord of the Rings, it’s best to judge the result only after the entire work has screened.

Pullman, an outspoken critic of C. S. Lewis’s heavy-handed Christian preaching in the Narnia books, gave His Dark Materials a free-thinking, atheistic foundation. This has caused a Catholic organization and multiple evangelical groups to call for a boycott. Of course, none of these people have seen the film, and, as is usually the case, they’ve missed the boat. I would have been amused to see an anti-Christian bias in the movie, just to give it some bite, but it isn’t there. Fearing it would harm ticket sales, the studio and director have crafted a movie incapable of offending anyone.

Back to Fantasy

 Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with:

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Sep 052007
 
two reels

In a shocking development, Peter Parker has problems dealing with his powers and his relationships. Mary Jane is still around to be saved, and to be a rotten girlfriend, though it is hard to blame her. And our villain of the week is the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), the retconned killer of Uncle Ben who fell into a science experiment. But this time there’s a second villain in Venom, a space symbiot who happens to infect Peter and then happens to bond with yet another person Peter happens to know (Topher Grace), because all super villains are connected to Peter personally. And Harry is still around as the New Goblin so the villain pool is crowded. Plus now we have Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is both in Peter’s physics class and happens to need to be saved by Spider-Man.

Here we go again. Same verse, same as the first. Well, almost, as the Batman problem with too many villains is accelerating. None of these miscreants is on anyone’s top ten list, although the scene of The Sandman waking up is the only time the trilogy does anything interesting cinematically. Unfortunately the rest of The Sandman’s appearances are ripped-off effects from The Mummy (1999). Venom was forced upon Raimi by the production company and he put little work into integrating that villain with the ones he had chosen. However, the big team up at the end isn’t bad.

But this is Spider-Man 3 and the only thing anyone wants to talk about is Dark Peter’s dance. Why do so many people hate it? It’s not because it isn’t fitting. Peter is (supposedly) a deeply uncool guy, so when the symbiot makes him attempt to be cool, this is what he comes up with. The scene also has the advantage of being something different in a trilogy that needs something, anything, different. But comics fans hate it.

The problem is they want the supposedly-uncool Peter to be cool. Spider-Man is wish fulfillment for people who think they deserved respect and didn’t get it. So they need their hero to be respected. They need him to be cool. Making fun of Spider-Man is not allowed, and the scene makes it easy to make fun of him. The hatred has nothing to do with the scene, but with some viewers’ need for validation.

I lack ego connection to Spider-Man, and am happy for something in the movie that isn’t a repeat.

The Spider-Man trilogy has some importance in the development of the superhero film genre (though much less than Superman, Batman, Blade, and X-Men) and sold a lot of tickets. But in time it will get lost under a pile of better films.

 Reviews, Superhero Tagged with:

Mummy Maniac (2007)

Aug 302007
 
toxic

Some guy wearing a cop uniform and speaking in a monotone brings an unknown and reasonably attractive 20ish actress—who isn’t really bothering to pretend to be anyone—into a small dark bathroom and then pretends to kill her and wraps her head with a few strips of gauze. Then he does it again. And then again. And again. And then two more times. And…that’s about it, except for a few shots of the guy with an older woman so that the director could pretend that he’s saying something about killers and mommy issues.

Mummy Maniac is a movie the way a cardboard box on the street is a house. One can call it one. And you can watch it on a video screen of some sort. And the picture moves. So, a movie. There seems to be no script, nor does anyone involved have skills at improv. I’d be surprised if the lighting involved anything more than a lamp. There is an annoying, constant rumbling sound which might be better than silence. They were going for some kind of snuff film aesthetic, but it is far to fake for that. So I even have to warn away death-fetishists. Hey, this film is for no one. That’s a feat.

This “based on a true story” serial killer crap isn’t based on a true story. It just sounds better than saying, “This is some faux murderer cosplay we thought you might be stupid enough to buy.”

As best as I can determine, Lionsgate gave some money to a guy named Ulli Lommel to churn out a bunch of no budget, semi-movies that they could trick people into buying with a near-professional cover. If your movie costs nothing to make, you reach profitability pretty quick. Since Lommel’s reputation for not being able to shoot a movie got around, we now have a film made by his protégé, Max Nikoff. And the existence of this garbage offends me. I run a film festival. I have screened hundreds of films from talented filmmakers who will never be able to make a living off of their work. They’d love some of that Lionsgate money. They could make something interesting. But instead the world has Mummy Maniac.

I usually get cover images from Amazon that come with a link you can use it buy the film. Not this time. I want no association with this atrocity.

 Horror, Reviews Tagged with:

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Jun 292007
 
two reels

The Adventures of Harry Potter during his fifth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Things aren’t going well for Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), or anyone else for that matter. Harry and  Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) have been ridiculed for claiming that the dark Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is back.  Out of paranoia, the Ministry of Magic attempts to shut them both up, sending the obsessively conservative Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) to the school to stifle thought. Harry, having learned that most of the adults he respects are part of a secret organization called the Order of the Phoenix, forms his own covert group organization where the students can learn the defensive magic that is now forbidden to them. They’ll need that training, as Voldemort and his Death Eaters want a special object and only Harry can stop them.

It’s Harry Potter, only slower, drabber, simpler, and less fun.  If you liked the first four films, you’ll like this one, just less. If you didn’t like those, don’t bother with this installment. The basics are the same. There’s Harry, respectably portrayed by a Daniel Radcliffe who’s looking a bit old for the part. He gets into a lot of trouble, some of his own making but most due to the adults never telling him what’s going on.  Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are still his loyal friends, Hogwarts is still a place of mystery, and there is yet again an abundance of adolescent angst.

What isn’t here is the wonder, that feeling of amazement at a world of magic and adventure.  There’s nothing grand or beautiful or breath-taking. That wouldn’t have to be a bad thing, but there needs to be a replacement. The idea was to go darker with this episode (though I’m lost on why dark stories can’t also be beautifully presented, why claustrophobic sets and washed-out colors are needed for tales with tension and pain). OK, so no childhood wonder. Fine. That means we ought to be getting a deeper look at the characters, a more complex story, and greater emotional weight.  But none of that is here. Order of the Phoenix has the slightest character development of any of the Potter films. Harry rarely changes expressions this time out and no one else gets enough screen-time to do more than clock in. It’s a cameo fest. Character after character pops in, says a line or two, and then disappears, only to put in a second, equally brief appearance before quitting the movie altogether.  Pull out your Potter Character Chart and watch the parade: there’s Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), Remus Lupin (David Thewlis), Prof. McGonagall (Maggie Smith), Mr & Mrs Weasley, Ginny Weasley, Draco Malfoy & his sidekicks, Prof. Trelawney (Emma Thompson), Prof. Flitwick (Warwick Davis), Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), and new bad-girl Bellatrix Lestrange (Helena Bonham Carter). None of them are significant and could have been written out of the film easily. It’s nice to see them all, but it takes time. Not much time for each flyby, but it adds up, and unfortunately, it adds up to most of the movie.  Cut five or six of these folks and there could have been a couple of minutes for Ron or Hermione or the always wasted Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) to do something…anything.

The plot is an even greater problem. There isn’t one.  At least not for three-fourths of the film.  Harry and his cameo companions exist at Hogwarts and go through their daily activities.  Nothing has a point or leads anywhere. They go to classes, they get detentions, they practice magic, they hide from Dolores Umbridge, and they moan a lot about how bad it all is and how they might be bad people.  OK, it’s Harry that does most of the moaning. Then, when the credits are within sight, a plot suddenly appears. It isn’t much of a plot but I guess you take what you can get.

It isn’t all bad. This is a Harry Potter film after all, with flashy magic spells here and there. The wizards and witches are an amiable group to spend some time with (our small band of heroes that is).  Even if it is filmed in a more pedestrian, flat style than the previous outings, there are worse looking films hitting the Cineplex. The picture shows some sign of the old charm when Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), a pleasant but, well…loony   new student is on screen. Her cock-eyed world-view is the one bit of sparkle to a franchise that’s getting dingy.

As has been the case with all of the a Harry Potter movies, the biggest problem comes from slavishly following the book. Since a film holds far less material than a novel (a very long novel in this case), something has to go.  It should be characters and subplots so that what is left is a complete, fleshed out story. They went a different way, giving us a Cliff’s Notes picture. Add to that a director who over-compensated for the excessive spectacle and grandeur in Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets by shooting as if he was making a small-screen melodrama, and you have the first Potter movie that isn’t worth the price of a theater ticket. Wait till it pops up at Blockbuster and Netflix.

The other films in the series are Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Back to Fantasy

 Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with:

Gryphon (2007)

Jun 292007
 
two reels

Long ago, a Kingdom was split by feuding brothers.  Since then, the two countries have fought.  With one about to lose, their sorcerer (Larry Drake) tricks the king into letting him summon the ancient protector of the land, a gryphon.  With the creature firmly under his control, the sorcerer moves to take over both Kingdoms.  The young prince of one (Jonathan LaPaglia) and the princess of the other (Amber Benson) work together to find a legendary weapon that can defeat the Gryphon before the sorcerer becomes immortal.

Gryphon is an old fashioned, sword and sorcery quest story.  If you’re a fan of the genre, or of anything similar (the ’50s-’70s Sinbad flicks), then you’ll be familiar with everything that happens.  It’s fun, it’s lighter than cotton candy, and as meaningless as any later Godzilla film.  The heroes must find a magical item, and to do so they will have to deal with physical and magical opponents and a few traps.  Naturally the leads will fall in love after the requisite bickering.  Yeah, you’ve seen it before.

While the basic plot is old hat, the specifics are better than you’ll find in most mid to low-budget fantasies.  The relationship has the needed sex appeal, and the cost of the main spell to the sorcerer is amusing.  The scenery and sets are believable (the Romanian forest locations make me want to trek to Eastern Europe), and the combats are as good as anything that doesn’t cost over 30 million.  OK, it’s not Lord of the Rings, but the swords clang in a satisfying manner.  And there’s some nice special effects, particularly the attacking ghost-knights.  The supporting cast is also better than normal, including scenery-chewing Larry Drake and the always lovely Sarah Douglas (Superman II, Conan the Destroyer), who has now been relegated to the mother role.

Better still is star Amber Benson (lesbian Tara on the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer)  Here she gets to play it sensual and tough, and manages both.  She’s got enough of the tomboy look to pull off the Princess-in-Armor bit, and is even better when she plays it sweet.  She manages to make a standard character as multidimensional as possible.

On the downside (oh, you knew there was a downside), there’s the title monster.  It’s a CGI creation and it looks it.  Everyone can’t be Peter Jackson, but there’s a middle ground between his perfection and horrible, video game animation.  The gryphon is hugging the horrible side.  It isn’t good for a film when viewers moan every time the monster pops up.

There’s also the sorcerer’s two witch-brides, that come off as modern wrestling babes.  I didn’t mind them, but then I have testosterone, and I’ve learned to expect hot chicks in fantasy films that don’t necessarily fit the setting…or are able to act.

But the biggest problem, and it’s a doozy, is Jonathan LaPaglia, who apparently traveled from Australia to this medieval world via New Jersey.  He’s the younger brother of Anthony LaPaglia and I couldn’t forget that for a moment.  A New York cop or an underworld gangster, sure I could accept him in those roles.  But as a sword-wielding prince?  Nope.  Not for a second.  This is miscasting on a grand scale.

While Gryphon will have a DVD release, it was financed by the Sci-Fi channel.  I recommend catching it there. For free, the price is right.

 Back to Fantasy

 Fantasy, Giant Monsters, Reviews Tagged with:
1 2 … 35 36 37 38 39 … 133 134