Foster on Film – Page 45 – The Film Criticism of Matthew M. Foster

Christmas with the Kranks (2004)

Oct 082004

With their daughter, Blair, planning to be gone for the Holidays, Luther and Nora Krank (Tim Allen, Jamie Lee Curtis) decide to skip Christmas and go on a cruise. However, the neighbors, led by the dictatorial Vic Frohmeyer (Dan Aykroyd) are upset by this lack of tradition and start protests. When Blair calls on Christmas Eve to say she has is coming after all, and with a new fiancée, the Kranks must put on their normal Christmas extravaganza with only a few hours notice.

It’s important to have a goal, and Tim Allen has an interesting one. He starred in the pleasant The Santa Clause and since then, he’s strived to be in a steady stream of worsening Christmas films. The Santa Clause 2 was a big step in the “right” direction, but he surpassed himself with Christmas with the Kranks. How he must have searched for a project this repugnant. Certainly his own acting was a piece of the disaster, but the script is the real masterpiece. Writing this bad doesn’t come around every day.

So, how do things go so horribly, horribly wrong? Mainly by sticking two movies together that don’t fit, and doing them both poorly. The first hour (or more; or less; God knows I don’t want to watch it again to time it), could have been a dark satire. It isn’t, but it could have been. Luther decides to skip Christmas and his near-Nazi neighbors attempt to force the Kranks to conform to mindless over-indulgence and materialism. There’s a lot of room for some funny jabs at a society which has lost touch with anything meaningful, but this is never followed through. The neighbors are obsessively nasty, but the film refuses to paint them as villains. No matter what insane lengths they go to (including screaming from the driveway, setting carolers to peep in the windows, and assaulting Nora as she tries to drive off), it is always kept as an option that they are right. It feels like an uncomfortable buildup that never reaches a climax.

Then film one ends, and the second begins. It is a slapstick-filled farce. Once Blair calls to say she’s coming for Christmas, we’re told in no uncertain terms that Luther and his desire to skip out on the goose-stepping is the problem. He’s been the real villain, and the materialistic demi-Nazis were right. It’s all about fitting into the local norm, and that involves lots of falling off roofs and dropping of food. Luckily, the SS are there in numbers to make sure that Blair never learns of her father’s blasphemy. As long as Luther surrenders individuality, then the purely empty Christmas will be saved. Hurrah! In case that doesn’t sound heart-warming enough, the script also gives us a dying woman with cancer (besides, this is a comedy, and what’s funnier than cancer?). Luther must go over to see these terrible people to bring a little cheer to the death house. Why the woman’s daughter, who made a huge deal of informing both Nora and the audience about the disease, is absent, is never explained.

While religion is hardly mentioned (Christmas is purely a time for lights competitions, though there is brief contempt spat at Judaism and Budism), I have to wonder how these people would behave if a Jew or Muslim lived in the subdivision. Would they hound them or simply string them up? It’s not really something to dwell on, since I’m sure non-Christians wouldn’t be allowed in the area. However, thinking about that while the film is playing could save you from hearing some of the dialog, so it does serve a purpose.

I’ve got to hand it to Allen, though he’s painted himself into a corner. Where can he find a worse film as a follow-up? But my hat is off as well to those that helped him. He couldn’t have done it without Jamie Lee Curtis and Dan Aykroyd, who went out of their way to prove that their best years are far behind them. That these two once starred together in the excellent, Christmas themed, Trading Places, just makes their fall all the more impressive. And I can’t forget John Grisham who’s responsible for the novel that started it all, because who can bring forth the joy of the season like the man who wrote The Pelican Brief? Finally, there is producer-writer Chris Columbus, who brings the same keen cinematic talent to play that he used in making the maudlin Bicentennial Man. Yes, it is Columbus who is the real man of the hour. By advocating cult-like adherence to the group, as well as materialism over meaning, and combining that with a complete absence of humor, he’s created a fetid piece of cinema that has something to offend, irritate, and bore everyone. Merry Christmas.

Christmas, Reviews Tagged with: Toxic

A Christmas Carol: The Musical (2004)

Oct 082004

A musical version of the traditional Christmas story where old humbug Ebenezer Scrooge (Kelsey Grammer) learns the true meaning of Christmas from three spirits.

Quick Review: With so many version of A Christmas Carol to choose from, I can be discriminating. There’s always another to switch to, and I suggest doing so when this is on.

Except for some special effects (primarily when Marley and the ghosts come through the walls), this version is directed like a stage musical. The scenes are on confined sets and the performances are broad, played for the 30th row, not for the intimacy of the screen. Even the over-dense makeup is applied for the stage. Not that a filmed stage musical can’t work, but this one fails where it really counts, the music. There’s nothing hummable here, nothing you’ll remember. I’ve heard comics improvise better songs. And as the songs take up time, the story is cut. If everyone on Earth didn’t know the plot, that would be a huge problem. As is, it just makes it abrupt. The first two spirits are done well, with Jane Krakowski making a sexy Ghost of Christmas Past and Jesse Martin putting real warmth into the Ghost of Christmas Present, but they can’t save the film.

Back to Ghost StoriesBack to Christmas

Christmas, Ghost Stories, Musicals, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

The Forgotten (2004)

Oct 062004

Telly Parada (Julianne Moore), grieving over the death of her son, finds that everyone has forgotten he ever existed and all traces of him are gone. When she tries to get a man to remember that he had a daughter that also died, she is suddenly wanted by the NSA.

I have my review of The Forgotten sitting in the miscellaneous page because if I put it where it belongs, it would give away the big secret. It’s not really much of a secret considering what they stuck in the trailers, but I’m going to try and say less than the studio marketing department. That makes it hard to comment on this film as the big “mystery” takes up so much of it.

So, what can I say? The FX are effective and the suddenness of several events will make most people jump. Julianne Moore does as good a job as possible with the role she is given. I can say that the chases go on far too long, and are poorly constructed (the only way she could have gotten away is for her pursuers to be not only stupid and technologically ignorant, but physically weak). I can also say that the opening is flawed as I should have liked Telly, but instead, I sympathized with her husband. Perhaps I just can’t put myself into the shoes of a woman who’s lost her child. But even if you empathize with her, don’t expect to enjoy this film.

To discuss how The Forgotten goes horribly, horribly wrong, I’d need to violate my oath of silence (OK, so I didn’t actually take an oath of silence, but I like that phrase). So, in vaguest terms, I’ll say that the story doesn’t make sense, is nearly incoherent, does not explain most of what is happening, has huge plot holes, and is stolen from a much better movie from 1998. Plus, nothing would have happened if it were not for an inexplicably poor job of wallpapering.

Miscellaneous, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)

Oct 062004

In 1815, sisters Brigitte (Emily Perkins) and Ginger (Katherine Isabelle) find themselves lost in the wilderness. Rescued by a native hunter, they are brought to a fort which has been under attack by werewolves. In the middle of the night, Ginger is bitten, and Bridget must keep it a secret or the few remaining men will kill her.

An odd type of prequel, Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning offers up two brand new characters, who happen to be named Brigitte and Ginger, and are played by the same actresses as in the two previous films. They have approximately the same relationship with each other and similar personalities to their previous (well, by a timeline, later) selves. I first assumed that they would be ancestors of the girls in Ginger Snaps, but as this story plays out, that’s unlikely. Think of it as a game. “Hey, what would Batman be like in the middle ages? How would Luke Skywalker win if he were born in pre-WWII Germany? What would happen if those Ginger Snaps girls were really around in the early 19^th century?”

The story rehashes the events of the first film, with a completely different tone. Again, the two girls swear to stick together, forever. Again, most other people are worthless or adversarial. And again, Ginger gets bitten and Brigitte tries to save her. But humorous moments are few and far between. The atmosphere is oppressive, and that’s the problem. There’s little to give the viewer a rest from the doom and gloom. Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning has been criticized for the 21^st century attitudes and language of the leads, but without the occasional anachronism to lighten the mood, it would be unwatchable.

It’s a good looking film. The Canadian landscape is rich, the cinematography more skilled than in the first film, and the werewolf effects are some of the best ever filmed. It has one striking shot, with Ginger in her long cloak, standing in the fort’s open gate, her arms spread wide and… You’ll just have to watch. But it perked me right up.

I was caught up with the story early on, and loved the addition of leeches as a way to test for lycanthropy. But with the drab middle and repetition, I was ready to write this one off. However, the ending improves matters. The climax is reasonably exciting, and characters make the choices I’d like to have seen in Ginger Snaps.

Reviews, Werewolves Tagged with: Two Reels

Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed (2004)

Oct 062004

Discovering that the “cure” for lycanthropy actually only delays it, Brigitte (Emily Perkins), who caught the disease from her now dead sister, Ginger (Katherine Isabelle), is on the run from a male werewolf and shooting up progressively more of the poisonous monkshood. An unfortunate series of events gets Brigitte locked up in a drug treatment facility. While desperately trying to get the drug which will keep her human, she meets Ghost (Tatiana Maslany), a younger girl who becomes obsessed with her, and Jeremy (Brendan Fletcher), who trades drugs for various sexual favors.

Following the cult favorite, Ginger Snaps, Ginger Snaps: Unleashed doesn’t fall into the sequel trap of being a retread, nor does it damage the integrity or mythology of the first. This is a new movie with its own story, its own theme, and its own voice, while never forgetting its roots. This is what a sequel should be.

While Brigitte was the lead in Ginger Snaps, Ginger was close. This one is all Brigitte, and Emily Perkins caries it off beautifully. It takes only a few moments for us to see that Brigitte is lonely and in pain, but determined to survive.

Theme and metaphor are big to the makers of this series. The first was about the pain and uncertainty of growing up with lycanthropy acting as the metaphor. I can’t say I was thrilled with the message, which suggested that repression, or avoidance of passion, was the way to go, but that was then. Now, lycanthropy is a metaphor for drug addiction but the message is how the world is a much more complicated place when seen through adult eyes. This is a film without anyone being all good or bad. There’re no strict heroes and villains, and that includes Brigitte. Ghost, who is kindly, innocent, and helpful, also has a dark side. Jeremy, who would be a mustache-twirling villain in a lesser film, will go out of his way to help. Nothing’s simple.

This is a more stressful film than its predecessor, and a more leisurely one, though it’s at least as bloody. There is very little plot. It’s all character development. I thought that there was a lot less humor as well, until the end, when I found out that there was a very dark joke in play for a long time.

Ginger Snaps: Unleashed is a more compelling work than Ginger Snaps, and more fulfilling for the viewer, with plenty to think about when it’s over. But it’s also less fun, and not as repeatable.

It was followed by a prequel, Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning.

Reviews, Werewolves Tagged with: Three Reels

Cursed (2004)

Oct 062004

In the aftermath of a car crash, brother and sister Jimmy and Ellie (Jesse Eisenberg and Christina Ricci) are bitten by a werewolf. When they begin to exhibit increased abilities, they know they must find the creature that bit them.

Cursed is half of a good film, cut into pieces, placed out of order, mixed with clichés and weak jokes, and topped with a bad mystery. As it was shot, shutdown, rewritten, fifty percent re-shot with a partially changed cast, and then edited from an R to a PG-13, it’s no surprise that it’s a patchwork.

Apparently, this project never had a firm vision. Wes Craven shoots it like a slasher (using a low POV as a victim slowly walks to her car, stopping at noises, etc.). I have no idea what writer Kevin Williamson had in mind; nothing on screen gives a clue.

Some of the tried-and-true is amusing. Bowing to 1941’s The Wolf Man, a club contains both a statue of Larry Talbot and a copy of his silver walking stick. There’s also a fortune teller to pronounce doom on the first victims, inexplicably portrayed by Portia de Rossi, though due to the muddled script, she wanders off at the halfway mark and is never seen again.

But most of the too-familiar scenes aren’t homages to earlier films, but sad clichés that Craven should know to avoid. Some are just silly, such as an Internet search on “L.A. wolves” that pops up a true life werewolf FAQ (try the search; you’ll end up on sports team sites long before you see a lycanthrope). There’s also the easy to attain tome of absolutely accurate monster info. Where do film characters find these books? Since this is, in part, a high school film, there has to be the bully (who has no resemblance to actual violent teens) who deep down is good and our young hero has to beat him at a sporting event. This leads to a scene that proves that neither Craven nor Williamson know what a high school is. The competition takes place at some kind of otherworld wrestling practice where there are not only spectators, but cheerleaders. The coach takes the bully’s word for it that our ex-wimpy wolf-boy wants to wrestle, and sends him right to the mat. This coach doesn’t intervene when a second bully joins the first in attacking Jimmy (but perhaps this school follows the rules of professional wrestling), nor when a throw looks likely to have caused spinal damage. Scary school. The stupidity of the scene is less of a problem than an indication of the haphazard way the story was tossed together.

I wonder if Williamson is trying to point out how stupid Jimmy is, or how stupid he believes the audience is. Jimmy actually looks at his hand, sees the perfectly placed five points, looks at the pentagram in his werewolf tome, and then gets a marker to connect the dots. I can almost hear him muttering, “OK idiots in the second row, see how these points form a star. You probably didn’t know that form just looking at them, but this means I’m a werewolf.” Sigh.

The multi-year shooting schedule causes Cursed to be dated before it was released. Ellie works for the Craig Kilborn show, the now canceled Craig Kilborn show. Ooops. And fans wildly cheer when Lance Bass appears at the club. Would anyone recognize Lance Bass now?

Red Herrings are forced on the audience. Why would a character be willing to stop and show his right palm (demonstrating there’s no pentagram), but then argue about showing his left? Well, he might if the script couldn’t come up with a reasonable way to keep him a suspect. Too bad anyone watching knows who the werewolf is within a few minutes of the opening.

Now I have a question to the girls out there as this isn’t my world: do girls actually push their way into other girl’s bathroom stall just to check on things? This is not an event I’d see in a guy’s washroom so I can’t tell if this is more bizarre writing or just one of those things about females I don’t understand. From my perspective, someone putting effort into shoving open a stall door, particularly when told there was no problem, is odd. Feel free to correct me.

The werewolf design, makeup, and CGI work, is pretty good, though the werewolf looked a bit like a teddy bear at one point. The transformation is better than in almost any other werewolf film. But the monster still looks fake. Being better than horrible isn’t enough, so why show it? When only a hand is shown changing, it is believable, so stick to that. A cartoon wolf, no matter how good, is just a cartoon wolf.

If the movie is sounding pretty bad to you from my review, I haven’t even gotten to the biggest problems. I won’t explain the worst bit of script incoherence as I’d have to reveal the end of the film. But I can mention the lack of character development. Jake is barely a character at all; his connection to the girls, his relationship with Ellie, and his personality all needed to be addressed, but aren’t. Joshua Jackson just stands there and speaks in a reedy voice.

So where is that good part I mentioned? In the two leads, and mainly in Ricci. As the normal sister, she is terrible. But when she’s allowed to be a strange, sexy, wolf-to-be, she’s as good as they get. No one does weird like Ricci. A liberated, powerful, Ricci-wolf is entertainment. The middle of the film should have been nothing but Ellie giving her officemates that preternatural stare of hers, and sniffing the air. As is, seeing Ricci suck on Kilborn’s finger will wash away much of the dreck in this flick.

Reviews, Werewolves Tagged with: Two Reels

Darklight (2004)

Oct 062004

A traitor to a secret organization of clerics (John de Lancie) passes a “blood” sample from the demon Lilith (Shiri Appleby) to a mad scientist (David Hewlett), who injects it into himself and turns into a plague carrying demon. To stop the creature and the disease, Shaw, the clerics’ secret agent (Richard Burgi), must train Lilith, whose has amnesia, to fight the forces of evil.

They don’t make religious-based films less religious than this. So, lets get our Biblical (and Gnostic) basics down. Lilith was created to be Adam’s first wife, but not wanting to be submissive, she said she’d rather not, which pissed off God, who cursed her, making her a rather grumpy demoness. The film ignores the details of Lilith’s activities. All that matters is she kills people. OK, so much for Judeo-Christian myth.

Lilith, the unstoppable monster, munches Shaw’s kid, and Shaw subdues her. Ummmm. How did Shaw manage that? Since that’s pre-movie stuff, the filmmakers don’t bother to say, but it does seem to be an important item. Shaw works for a super secret religious organization called The Faith, that’s been hunting Lilith for many years. They hang out in an underground lab which is supported by…well, they never tell us. Now I’m guessing that The Faith is filled with religious folks, but there isn’t a Bible is sight. Rather they are “generic secret organization #7.” They decide not to kill her, but to take away all her memories. Wow, they can do that? Cool. This is a technology that needs to be used more often. Lilith, who is evil by the dictate of God, becomes good when she forgets her past. So much for God. And that’s where the movie starts.

Shiri Appleby is a cute, pixie-like Lilith. Was “cute” and “pixie-like” the way to go when casting an ancient creature of evil? Even if she’s now a good guy, shouldn’t she be a little edgy? A little dark? Nope, this is ultimate wickedness portrayed by the girl next door.

Once the film forgets it has a religious basis, it becomes yet another superhero girl-power story. We get that same training scene that’s been in more movies than I can count. Naturally she lacks confidence at the beginning and gains it as the story progresses. But this isn’t Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy had witty dialog, while this has:

“Why did you come today. Our marriage is over. Connor is gone. You haven’t moved on.”

Well, that’s an…informative line. We now know that Shaw and his wife are divorced, that they don’t get along, and that his dead kid’s name is Connor. Of course no human being speaks like that.

The climax is a battle between two CGI demons on a CGI rooftop, using CGI weapons. It looks like a cut scene from any number of well made computer games. I’ve got nothing against CGI work, but if your big moments are going to look completely different than the rest of the film, maybe you should consider making the whole thing animated.

There’s an interesting film to be made from the legend of Lilith and her refusal to give in to Adam and God. This isn’t that movie.

Christian Mythos, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

The Village (2004)

Oct 052004

The residents of an early 18th century village live happily, keeping a truce with the unknown creatures of the woods. But something has upset the nameless beings, and worse, someone may have to break the pact and enter the forest.

In The Sixth Sense, M. Night Shyamalan gave us one of the great twist endings. Perhaps what made it so great was that the film would have worked without it. There was an engaging story and character development. The ending made an excellent film great.

But The Village is another matter; there is nothing here but the ending. There is no plot except a huge arrow pointing at that twist ending. I can hardly call this a movie. It is just an ending. So, if two hours of developed film stock rely on a few minutes of surprise to make it worthwhile, then that better be one great surprise, something unexpected, clever, and thoughtful. Sadly, it is none of those things. Within a few minutes of my first glimpse of those happy farm folk, I had come up with three simplistic endings that a poor screen writer would use (I won’t say what these are as it would give away too much for any of you foolish enough to care). I then hoped that Shyamalan would not use any, but come up with something I wouldn’t expect. And if he couldn’t manage that, to at least avoid the least interesting of the three. No such luck. He went right for the least imaginative one. It’s hardly even a twist. It’s one step away from nothing at all happening, and in the end, that is the result, a complete absence of a story. It doesn’t matter that character motivation is lacking and lines are read with a flatness seldom heard outside accounting offices; those are minor offences by comparison.

Horror, Reviews Tagged with: Toxic

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Oct 052004

A slacker (Simon Pegg) tries to change his life by rescuing his girlfriend (Kate Ashfield) and mother when the world is overrun by zombies.

Shaun of the Dead is three films in one. The first section, about slacker Shaun in his day-to-day life, failing at his nowhere job, losing his girlfriend, playing video games with his even-more-of-a-slacker friend, is typical British sitcom fare. It’s nicely written, with amusing dialog and plenty of sight-gags. Nothing special, but for a setup, it’s not bad. But it goes on too long. The jokes stretch too far and it starts to feel like a 2nd or 3rd rate Britcom. The best bits involve the first sightings of zombies and how they are no different than Shaun and the other slackers living their nothing lives.

The film’s second section is where Shaun lives up to its hype. Once Shaun is in full zombie-fighting mode, this is a great comedy. The attempt to destroy the living dead with old LPs (but not the good LPs) is a bit I’ll remember for years. While the act-like-a-zombie routine was done in 1999’s The Mummy it is still good for a laugh.

But unfortunately, it all falls apart in the third section. Suddenly, Shaun of the Dead ceases to be a comedy. The zombie fighting and emotional loss is taken seriously. In the worst scene in the film, there is a Mexican standoff with the characters arguing over how to treat the dead body of a loved-one before it rises as a zombie. We all know this scenario from a hundred other films. Gee, I wonder what the right answer is? I wonder what will happen if they don’t destroy the brain? Ah! Has writer/director Edgar Wright never seen a zombie film? He then goes on to give us a man standing by the window with the horde outside. Wow, what originality. As a comedy, Shaun of the Dead is first rate, but as a serious zombie horror film, it would have been out of date in 1970, and for reasons I cannot guess, it tries so hard to be a serious zombie flick. It’s too bad. There was so much potential here, but it ends up a huge disappointment.

Back to Zombies

Post-Apocalyptic, Reviews, Zombies Tagged with: Two Reels

Ring of Darkness (2004)

Oct 042004

The members of the boy-band Take 10 are secretly zombies with very good makeup. Once again needing a new lead singer, their manager (Adrienne Barbeau) sets up auditions where the three winners will travel to the band’s island for the final competition. Indie-rocker Shawn (Coltin Scott) doesn’t want the job, but he’s pushed into trying for it by his girlfriend (American Idol contestant Ryan Starr). As the three finalists dance to prove their worth, the zombies decide which one is ready to join the living dead.

I’ll never make it in film marketing. I lack the necessary insights. There are times when I just can’t figure out who would like a particular film. Take Ring of Darkness—who is the target audience for this movie?

With the repetitive use of boy-band music (including repeating the same song over and over and over), and the boy-band dancing and montages, only young “tween” girls could sit through this. But it makes fun of boy-bands, saying the fad has past and implying that they don’t perform “real” music.

The film also has four, pretty young males, living together and displaying their rock-hard abs, searching for a fifth pretty young male. When they find what they are looking for, they all strip down to their tight black underpants, and tie the new guy (also just in his underwear) to a table. So, this is a gay film. Except they never move on each other, they sleep with female groupies, and the lead is shown to be heterosexual.

Let’s not forget this is a zombie movie. Zombies, with their decaying flesh, are rarely thought of as a turn-on (which messes up most tween girl and homosexual fantasies). Zombie fans love blood and gore, of which there isn’t any.

As the band’s secret is given away immediately and the story goes in a straight line to the end, this isn’t for fans of mysteries or complex plots. Also, as this band has been killing very noticeable people with connections to the press, and no police have ever come calling, this is only going to be enjoyed by those who don’t pay attention while watching.

So, this films is for simplistic, unobservant, ten to twelve-year-old, necrophilic homosexuals, who dream of being girls and dancing to boy-band music, but hate that about themselves, and are convinced they should be attracted to girls and listen to alternative rock. Now to me, that sounds like a pretty small niche. But as I said, I just don’t understand marketing.

Back to Zombies

Reviews, Zombies Tagged with: One Reel

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Oct 042004

In 1870 Paris, a mysterious masked Phantom (Gerard Butler) arranges for his protégée, Christine Daae (Emmy Rossum), to take over the lead at the opera. When Christine renews her relationship with the Viscomte Raoul de Chagny (Patrick Wilson), the Phantom vows revenge.

The Phantom of the Opera takes you back to another time. No, that time isn’t the 1870s, but the 1970s, when disco was in the air, and Europe was filled with the the simplistic tapping of cheap drum machines. Techno pop ruled the Eurovision Song Competition and ABBA was its master. Now don’t get me wrong. I’ve had my ABBA moments. Dancing Queen makes me smile and I’ve put on Knowing Me, Knowing You, (but only when no one would know so I could hide the shame). But ABBA is not great art, nor did it ever claim to be. It’s fun, lowest-common-denominated pop-rock for the masses; The Phantom of the Opera pretends to be of cultural significance (cultural significance with a drum machine). It is, but in the same way Jerry Lewis and Vanilla Ice are.

Worse still, it manages the reach the level of ABBA only on occasion (with the title tune which could have been a 1977 entry in Eurovision). The songs that aren’t mid-level techno sound adlibbed. The comedians on the TV series Who’s Line is it Anyway? created more memorable and emotional songs on the spur of the moment each week. As for the story, stripped of its horror elements, it is implausible at the best of times.

These problems are with the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical in general. For any production of the work, stage or screen, it’s up to the director to salvage it with his own interpretation. Now, there’s a certain thrill in going to a live performance, which is magnified if the show is loud, colorful, and over-the-top. All the director needs to do is mask the weaknesses in that energy. But screen director Joel Schumacher had no such advantage. Schumacher, who successfully mixed teen isolationism, horror, and comedy in The Lost Boys and then floundered with the vacuous and surprisingly dull Batman Forever (1995) and its follow-up, Batman & Robin (1997), is in Batman mode here. Clearly he was given a nearly impossible task, but the best he could come up with was to toss it on the screen and try and make the sets look pretty. At least the lavish decor distracts from the songs. But for so much lushness, Schumacher rarely manages to make it look attractive. Many scenes are claustrophobic and have the charm of an over-stuffed antique store.

Color may be the film’s only real success. Often, backgrounds are reduced to a monochrome blue, (or reddish brown when under torchlight), setting off flesh, blood, roses, and lips, which are brightly colored. It’s a pleasing effect, wasted here.

The casting could have been better, but is a negligible problem when compared to the music and story. Emmy Rossum was an extremely good choice for Christine. She’s lovely, with a clear, strong voice, and she doesn’t embarrass herself when forced to recite the lines she’s given, proving she has star potential. Patrick Wilson doesn’t rise above the poorly written Viscomte Raoul de Chagny, nor does he drag it any further down. Gerard Butler is the weakest of the major players. His voice is too thin for the dramatic and romantic Phantom. Still, it is not as if a more talented singer could have rescued the film. Butler’s acting is lacking as well, but he has been adequate in other parts. The difficulty is the role. In Chaney’s 1925 version, The Phantom is a sad and sympathetic monster. Here, he’s just a jerk. It’s hard to portray a romantic jerk.

I’ve been writing about the film’s details as if they matter, and they don’t. It is the overblown whole which counts, and as a whole, it is tedious and pretentious. It’s what you’d expect your aunt Edith, who brings you pillows from roadside gift shops with “Florida, the alligator state” and “My Aunt went to Yuka flats and all I got was this stupid pillow” stenciled on them, and who has never listened to either a symphony or Led Zeppelin, would extol as deeply cultured. Much like those pillows, the musical, and this movie, are an embarrassment.

Gerard Butler stared in the passable Dracula 2000 (2000), the abysmal Lara Croft, Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life (2003), and the mind-numbing Timeline (2003).

Other film versions include: Lon Chaney’s silent version The Phantom of the Opera (1925), which was re-release in a cut version in 1929, Claude Rains’s The Phantom of the Opera (1943), the short, Spanish language El Fantasma de la ópera, the Hammer Horror The Phantom of the Opera (1962), the Maximilian Schell/Jane Seymour made for TV The Phantom of the Opera (1983), the Robert Englund’s Slasher The Phantom of the Opera (1989), the stage-bound musical The Phantom of the Opera (1990), the TV mini-series The Phantom of the Opera (1990), and director Dario Argento’s Il Fantasma dell’opera (1998).

Artists, Reviews Tagged with: Toxic

Catwoman (2004)

Oct 042004

After introverted Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) is murdered, she is resurrected by cats. With a new sense of purpose and style, she hunts for her murderer, assumed to be the head of a cosmetics company (Lambert Wilson) or his wife (Sharon Stone). At the same time, a policeman (Benjamin Bratt) courts Patience while chasing the town’s new criminal.

I think we all know that Catwoman is no artistic triumph; if you don’t know that, just trust me. Even compared to other comic book superhero films, a rather low standard, Catwoman has a poorly developed plot, cardboard characters, a non-existent theme, and lackluster acting. Stone is particularly poor; this is the woman who defined sex in Basic Instinct? What happened? The FX are on a level with Spiderman, and no, that isn’t a good thing. As with the arachnid, you can watch Halle Berry switching from live-action to digital and back again. Shouldn’t good effects try to fool me into thinking I am not watching a cartoon during the action sequences?

OK, so I think its clear that this is a failure. That said, it’s a fun failure. Halle Berry watching fish hungrily and playing with a catnip ball is screwball comedy of a high level. And, if you happen to like watching the beautiful Ms Berry in tight, minimalist leather and a whip (as I do), you’ll find lots to enjoy. As a sexy, silly comedy, Catwoman is a success. Of course they wanted it to be an exciting action picture. Oh well.

Reviews, Superhero Tagged with: Two Reels

1 2 … 43 44 45 46 47 … 133 134