Foster on Film – Page 43 – The Film Criticism of Matthew M. Foster

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

Jun 292005

The Adventures of Harry Potter during his fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) finds himself mysteriously chosen as a fourth competitor in the very dangerous TriWizard Tournament, even though he is too young and there should be only three. He must survive three challenges, and determine who submitted his name and how this relates to his dreams of the evil Lord Voldemort. He must also deal with the extreme jealousy of his friend Ron (Rupert Grint) and the blossoming of Hermione (Emma Watson), who is dating the favorite for the trophy. Helping him is the new defense against the dark arts teacher, Alastor ‘MadEye’ Moody (Brendan Gleeson).

Harry Potter has matured, and I mean the franchise. This fourth visit to the land of youthful magic students is every bit as flashy and effects-laden as its predecessors (more so actually), but not just for show. Every CGI wonder is important not only for tone, but for the story. Gone are the friendly ghosts and, for the most part, the talking portraits, which were fun, but existed only for setting. In their place there is a submersible galleon, a remarkable pegasi-drawn flying carriage, and a fearsome dragon; none of which sidestep the narrative. It makes them even more impressive.

You don’t have to read the credits to know that the series is on director number three. His impact is noticeable in every part of the production. Mike Newell, the first Brit to direct this very British series, has a more Spartan view of the eldritch world than his forerunners. It is equally beautiful, but less busy. The great halls of the wizards’ school look impressive rather than quaint. The backdrops in the earlier films could have doubled for OZ, should anyone plan a remake, but the sets for Goblet of Fire would be more fitting in a medieval epic.

More of an adventure film than its predecessors, Goblet of Fire is the most exciting of the lot. Harry has some real challenges on his hands and it is easy to get caught up with him. While it is obvious that nothing all that terrible can happen (books 5 & 6 have already been published, so its a good bet he’s not going to die), there is a solid attempt to make the situations feel dangerous. Harry gets to be an action-hero, with some serious combat, a great deal of jumping, flying, and magic-zapping, and a fair number of tense moments.

The young actors are having little difficulty growing into their roles. Daniel Radcliffe is a believable teen (though he looks more like the sixteen-year-old he is than the fourteen-year-old he plays). This film asks a lot from him, and he is more than up to the task, showing a greater range than I expected. Watson appears to be as good, though she has less to do. She’s also becoming a beauty, which is going to be hard to ignore in the next film (due in 2007), when she’ll be seventeen pretending to be fifteen.

With a 700 page novel as the source material, quite a lot of cutting was needed, even for a two and a half hour film. The results are mixed. The film is lean and fast-moving. However, strands from the book that should have been jettisoned make an appearance. Several characters show up simply because they did in the novel, but don’t have enough screen time to do anything. The romances hardly exist, which makes me wonder why we’re even introduced to Cho Chang (Katie Leung) as a not-really love interest for Harry. Either she should have been given more prominence, or yanked to make room for other elements.

There isn’t a single classroom scene (though we do get a study hall), or any vacations, making it hard to tell how much time is passing. Many of the characters we’ve come to expect to play a part in the proceedings—Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane), Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton)—appear only in cameos. This is understandable, except time is wasted on a ridiculous subplot in which Ron, and many students, turns on Harry, believing him to be a liar. It goes nowhere as everyone changes their mind, and since the viewer already knows Harry is telling the truth, it’s just an irritating time filler. This is supposed to be “character development,” but as such, it isn’t very good. The time would have been better spent with the growing mystery, or the romances.

Like in the other Potter movies, the story doesn’t hold up if examined too closely. The evil wizards have an insanely convoluted plan to get a hold of Harry, when they could have done it in an easy and straightforward manor. “Hello Harry, could you come over here a minute? Good. Now, hold onto this portal object and…” But that’s the trouble with evil, it just isn’t very bright.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a fine addition to the Harry Potter film franchise. Any flaws come from a too-tight grip by author J.K. Rowling and producers, who are unwilling to let the films vary more from their source.

As for the PG-13 rating, ignore it. I would have loved this as a six-year-old and wouldn’t have lost a moments sleep.

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

Back to Fantasy

Christmas, Christmastime, Fantasy, Giant Monsters, Reviews Tagged with: Three & 1/2 Reels

Land of the Dead (2005)

Jun 032005

With the world infested by zombies, one city survives, sending out scavenging parties. Within the city, Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) and the rich live in a luxury complex while the rest live in slums. Riley (Simon Baker), a retired scavenger, wants only to go off on his own, but is drafted into service, along with a mentally dim sharpshooter (Robert Joy) and a prostitute (Asia Argento), to stop Cholo (John Leguizamo) who has stolen the city’s armored vehicle. As the humans fight among themselves, the living dead have organized behind an uncommonly aware zombie, Big Daddy (Eugene Clark), and have found a way into the city.

This is why fantasy (that’s the all-inclusive term, including horror, SF, etc.) is a more important and interesting genre than any other. You can tell a story using the metaphors of fantasy that you could never tell otherwise. You can say things that no one would listen to if discussed directly. And that’s what George A. Romero, the originator of the modern zombie film, does. He peels away the jingoistic rhetoric and takes a look at the post-9/11 world, and what he sees is none too flattering. Unfortunately, the people who need to understand what he’s presenting are likely to miss the message behind the zombies. That’s the problem with being clever; it requires your audience to be clever too.

For anyone who isn’t up on the last forty years of zombie cinema, Romero changed everything (well, for zombies) with 1968’s Night of the Living Dead. Made firstly as a graphic horror tale, it also contained a message of the times. It focused on racism and Vietnam-era anger. In 1978, after having learned a noticeable amount about filmmaking, he created the iconic, blood-soaked satire, Dawn of the Dead, which examined American consumerism. He followed that with ‘85’s disappointing Day of the Dead, which took a stab at Reagan-era militarism. The low budget forced him to simplify his original script, some of which was held over for Land of the Dead. The success of zombie films after 2000 created an interest (and the financing) for Romero to return to his Dead series, and to once again comment on American life.

So, what does his all-too-accurate vision see? An America (metaphorically represented by Pittsburg, but filmed in Canada) that’s isolated and paranoid. It is also split between the rich and the disenfranchised, and that division is growing. Those in charge, a combination of businessmen and conservative politicians, have no understanding and little care for the poor. In the film, that leadership is represented by Kaufman, a debonair and more intelligent version of George Bush, seeking to keep power, enrich himself and his friends, and maintain the status quo. That means keeping the poor in their place. This is relatively easy to do with the aid of the constant threat of zombies. It’s amazing how useful fear is in getting people to give up their rights.

And who are the zombies? They are the citizens of the third world, particularly the Middle East—the so-called terrorists. They have little, and understand less, but they do own the land. They know nothing of America (ummm, I mean the city), and if left alone, would probably never have been a threat. But it isn’t the city dwellers way to leave the outside alone. They travel into the countryside with armor and high tech weapons, taking the resources and shooting the locals. The zombies are also degraded and tortured (a vision of Abu Ghraib). Romero is no apologist for “terrorists” (a decaying, flesh-eating zombie is not exactly a positive portrayal), but he is saying that everyone has to own up to their responsibilities, and that’s not something that Americans have done.

He’s also saying that this is what you should expect of mankind. He doesn’t present any solutions. The hero isn’t trying to save the day, but just to leave all of humanity behind.

Land of the Dead is a daring look at current American society and a cynical statement on mankind. It is also a beautifully shot horror film that’s low on frights, but high on astounding gore. The walking dead look amazing, and any fan of flesh being ripped from bone will not be disappointed.

The characters are less interesting, with few getting enough screen time for any development. Riley is hardly a character at all, so I had no investment in his survival. Slack, the prostitute, played by an oddly clothed Asia Argento, could have been marked in the script as “generic film prostitute.” Kaufman and Cholo are the only humans with significant personalities, and they are both slimeballs. The only character who invokes any sympathy is Big John, the zombie. And that’s what makes Romero still king of the sub-genre. He shocks once again, not only with his theme, but by shifting to look at things through the eyes of the walking dead. Eugene Clark is the true star of the film, emoting through extensive makeup to create someone I want to help, but don’t want to be anywhere near. Romero’s mistake was in keeping a conventional hero in Riley—the film would have been better if everyone was a villain.

There are plenty of minor flaws that lessen the impact of the movie. Too much time is spent with Cholo’s revolution (thematically important, showing the rise of home-grown terrorists, but plot-wise a waste when there is zombie fun to dwell on). The economy of the city is hard to accept with people still caring about paper dollars. And a population used to seeing staged zombie fights with a cat as the prize should have been shocked with the sudden substitution of a person for the bait (sure, humans have proven they’ll go for such sport, but only with a solid belief in a us-verses-them world, and in this case, the victim is one of us.) But nitpicks aside, Land of the Dead is a fine addition to the world of zombies. It could easily have been better, but it will do.

A director’s cut adds four minutes to the runtime, mainly in minor extensions of the gore scenes and a nice moment where one of the rich hangs himself with obviously bad consequences for anyone getting too close to the body. It doesn’t make a lot of difference, but the director’s cut is the better version if given an option.

Back to Zombies

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

The Heirloom {Zhaibian} (2005)

May 112005

Years ago, a family of millionaires committed mass suicide by hanging. Now James (Jason Chang), brought up in England, has inherited a rotting, labyrinthine mansion. He settles in with his fiancée Yo (Terri Kwan), a successful dancer who is uncertain that a life with James will be fulfilling. The house proves to be a poor place to relax. Strange noises are followed by mysterious footprints. Then their friends appear late at night, with no memory of how they got there. Deaths follow. James takes it all in stride, but Yo realizes there’s a family secret and she needs to uncover it if they are to survive.

J-horror, Taiwanese-style, meets art film in The Heirloom, a creepy haunted house thriller that doesn’t try to scare, but to impress. The tension is high, but so is the beauty, though it is often accompanied by decay. I’ve never seen such meticulous work before in a creature feature. Every angle, every piece of furniture, every beam of light, and every color mean something. The red of blood is important, but no more so than the red of the flower pedals that fall on Yo during one of several modern dance numbers, and you can bet that the dances are symbolic of the chaos or pain going on elsewhere in the film.

Feeling original for Asian horror, The Heirloom still has an old-school vibe. It’s reminiscent of 1960s American haunted house films, where the dread builds slowly until it is ever-present. There isn’t a twisted Ringu-type spirit in sight, nor the expected chases. The house is the monster here, and even if the ghosts can be pinpointed more precisely, it’s still the whole structure that will make you shiver.

While most Asian ghost stories have a back-story involving pain and betrayal, The Heirloom‘s takes it to a new extreme. The history of the family up to twenty years ago would make a marvelously twisted movie. Unfortunately, too much of that background is fed to the viewer as text before the credits. If you watch on DVD, turn off the subtitles for the first two minutes and you’ll have a better experience.

So much is good about The Heirloom, particularly Terri Kwan, yet my overwhelming feeling after it was over was anger. It could have been one of the great ghost stories and they blew it. A few too many flashbacks got on my nerves, but the real problem is James. His character isn’t explained, has an unrealistic background (he doesn’t remember anything from when he was eight and has never heard about the deaths of his very close and extremely wealthy relatives whom he had lived with), fades out of the second act, and is part of a ludicrous climax that saps much of the power from the film. In the first half hour, all indications point to James being the protagonist, but his emotions and thoughts cease to be any part of the film. That’s OK as Yo is a far more compelling character. That is, it’s OK till the end. James’s behavior then discounts everything Yo and he have learned (except that the family is trouble). It also brings up some questions about his medical knowledge, but I’ll let that go. If the movie is going to end as it does, then the filmmakers needed to show us (a lot) more of what was going on with James. Apparently they were going for shock. Well, I wasn’t shocked, just disappointed.

The Heirloom is still a good movie, but it should have been so much more.

Back to Ghost Stories

Asian, Foreign Language, Ghost Stories, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

Path of Destruction (2005)

May 042005

A cloud of nanobots escape from an oil platform controlled by corrupt businessman, Roy Stark (David Keith), and floats with a storm, devouring everything it touches. Blamed for the destruction of the platform as an eco-terrorist, ex-reporter Katherine Stern (Danica McKellar) seeks out theoretical climatologist Nathan McCain (Chris Pratt) to help clear her name and discover what really happened. Eventually, they are aided by Colonel Thomas Miller (Franklin Dennis Jones) who is ready to use nuclear force to stop the nanobots.

Let me dwell on the climax of Path of Destruction. The world is in jeopardy. Only a wild scheme, backed by the military, can save it. So, an aging Colonel chooses an ex-newswoman accused of treason and a climatologist to join him on a dangerous mission with an untested aircraft, and no one else. Couldn’t he get, I don’t know, maybe…a pilot? Perhaps some trained military personnel? They can’t all be in Iraq. This is just one of the dumb moments that are littered through a very dumb film with a not so bad premise.

A nanobot (itty bitty computer for those of you who didn’t keep up with the last years of Star Trek) swarm—sweeping across the country like a storm, destroying everything—has potential as the basis for a horror film or a serious sci-fi picture. For a cheesy, made for SciFi Cannel romantic adventure flick, it doesn’t do so well. Part of that could be the budget that stopped the nanobots from doing much destruction. They kill a few folks, and a building falls over, but more damage is shown from hail (apparently, if a bunch of mini-robots hitch a ride with some clouds, it causes hail). I’m guessing it was cheaper to film falling snowballs than to CGI-in a town dissolving.

With the budget too low, it was up to the screenwriter to save the day with a clever idea. So, what exciting twist did the author of the classic Boa vs. Python (it was robbed at the Oscars) come up with? EMP. Yes, electromagnetic pulse, now a concept in every third movie, is trotted out once again. At least most of the many, many, many films that use an EMP device are gracious enough to make a big deal of having one (since no such device exists). But here we have Colonel Miller ordering one from stock.

David Keith plays Roy Stark, who is an evil businessman. I can’t imagine that any more thought was put into the character than that. He does evil things because, well, because all cheap movies where a corporation creates something problematic has a CEO that does evil things. It undoubtedly saved a lot of time on script writing. All that had to be done was to scan in any of a thousand scripts lying about, and then do a find-and-replace to change the evil businessman’s name to Roy Stark. I remember long ago when David Keith was in good movies. It was very long ago. Now he’s become the king of ill-conceived, made-for-TV genre schlock (Sabretooth, Deep Shock, Epoch, Epoch: Evolution). It’s a living.

Although directed by Stephen Furst (Animal House, Babylon 5), he can sidestep most of the blame for this mess, except for casting himself as the painfully unfunny comedy relief, and then failing utterly in self-direction. He does a passable job with stars McKellar and Pratt, but considering how dismal this project is, it doesn’t matter.

Disaster, Reviews Tagged with: One Reel

The Island (2005)

Apr 042005

It’s 2019, and Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson) live in an enclosed, sterile, controlled, post-apocalyptic society where the only goal is to win the lottery and be sent to The Island, the last uncontaminated spot on Earth. But Lincoln is discontented and having nightmares, so he sneaks out, and learns everything he’s been told is a lie. With Jordan in tow, he runs from the facility, getting help from McCord (Steve Buscemi), an engineer friend who already knew the truth. Doctor Merrick (Sean Bean) cannot afford the rest of the world to learn what he’s been doing, so sends a squad of assassins, led by Albert Laurent (Djimon Hounsou) to take out the two escapees.

For a few minutes, The Island pretends that it is going to be about something. It’s not exactly a new something—if you’ve seen THX1138, you’ve seen this—but it’s not a bad something. There are some concepts dealing with oppressive government control tied into some recent advances in biological science. But any serious science fiction disappears quickly, first under the weight of homages to (read: “rip-offs from”) other films, and then in the ash from all the explosions.

I suggest getting together with a few friends and make it a competition: who can come up with the most concepts, scenes, and even lines lifted from earlier flicks. Let me get you started:

A person in-the-know explains to an artificial person that her memories are implanted. The created woman then begins to tell a story about her childhood to prove she has memories, which the other person finishes. That’s Blade Runner. And for an extra point, there’s the moment when the two artificial people, one male, one female, turn together to the put-upon person who’s been working with the bad guys, and says “Help us.” That’s Blade Runner too.
Innocent masses leaving from the top of their enclosed city to see the true world. Yup, that’s Logan’s Run. Much of the first half of the film is swiped from Logan’s Run.
“I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it.” A slight cheat. That’s not from a film, but a mainstay of Bill Cosby’s standup routine.

I don’t want to spoil all the fun, but if you still need help, just think of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, Coma, The Matrix, and two of the Star Wars movies. Of course you’re always going to win the game if you just write down every scene as coming from The Clonus Horror. You’d think someone would have been upset that the earlier film was remade without any credit or royalties going to its makers, but then The Clonus Horror was a low budget film remembered only by fans of TMST3K, and The Island has a big-money studio behind it (but I thought the studios were against copyright infringement…).

Playing the “lines from other films” game with you is the always charming Ewan McGregor. Is it possible not to like him? He would make a successful psycho-knife-killer as each of his smiling victims would be only too happy to oblige: “Well, tut tut, if you really feel you need to carve out my heart, well, I’m sure you know what’s best.” McGregor smiles, and makes the over-used concepts and dialog seem new. I can’t say I was worried about Lincoln Six Echo, but I did want McGregor to escape. Joining him is Scarlett Johansson, who looks great in a tight, white jumpsuit. It is vitally important that she does look exquisite (in that tight, white jumpsuit…), because that’s her function in the film. Her character could have been eliminated from the script without making any other changes. All that would be lost would be her in that…tight…white…jumpsuit.

So, there’s charming McGregor and jumpsuit-clad Johansson walking through some previously used science fiction storylines, which is all well and good, except the unanswered questions begin to mount up. Why are a human’s organs only healthy if he is awake? Why (and how?!) are memories being transferred between individuals? These are questions that need to be answered for the film to makes sense.

Guess what? The film never makes sense.

In its second half, the story, themes, characters, and even the unanswered questions are lost in a barrage of over-the-top action that is surprisingly low on thrills. Things blow up. Lots of things, generally in washed-out colors, and none of it is engaging. It doesn’t help that it is so fake. Hitmen hit just about everything in the city except our heroes. Not that it would have mattered if they were strafed with fifty caliber machineguns as nothing can hurt them. They plummet from a skyscraper, never losing their grip on a giant sign, and walk away from their landing. We’ve long passed improbable and have leaped over impossible. This is OK stuff for a comedy, but it is presented as gripping and perilous adventure. I was really trying to buy into all the absurdities, but there is a point when suspension of disbelief becomes impossible.

I shouldn’t have been surprised, as The Island was directed by Michael Bay (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor), who equates excitement with big booms. It doesn’t matter that none of the booms are connected to anything threatening, just as long as they are loud. And when even a gunshot or a rocket isn’t enough, Bay solves the problem by shaking the camera. If you rate films by the unsteadiness of the camerawork, than The Island is going to be a favorite.

It’s hard to hate a film that is this dumb. It is what you’d have gotten if Ed Wood had found a hundred million dollars and had access to A-list actors. It’s fun as long as you don’t think too hard and don’t pay too much attention. If you have a few household chores to do, toss on The Island for background. It should work great if you have a cabinet to build as you can hear all the explosions over your hammering, and you can rest your arm when McGregor is speaking or Johansson is standing around in her jumpsuit. Plus, if you miss parts, it really won’t matter.

Dystopia, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

Dark Water (2005)

Mar 102005

Dahlia (Jennifer Connelly), a recently divorced mother going through a custody battle, moves with her young daughter (Ariel Gade) to an apartment with a water-damaged ceiling. Soon, water is dripping into the bedroom, and mysterious events are occurring that relate to a missing girl.

Dark Water is the result of a group of primarily talented people getting together and doing some of their best work. The problem is that these people were making a horror film, but they neither liked nor understood the genre. Producer Bill Mechanic publicly stated he’s not a fan of horror and was glad that Dark Water didn’t fit into that category. Apparently, everyone connected to the film was under the massive misconception that you can’t say anything interesting or important with horror, that only drama can do that. So, they took the Japanese fright film Honogurai mizu no soko kara (Dark Water), kept the social commentary and story, but changed the tone and dropped the ghost, leaving a slow-paced, repetitive melodrama.

So, lets get the good parts out of the way. The music, art design and cinematography are well done, setting a tense and unrelenting mood. I don’t go to the theater to see skilled art design, but it’s nice when it’s there. The basic storyline is also good. Perhaps there isn’t enough material for a feature, but it would make a great short. And there is the acting. Granted, much of the cast is merely adequate. The normally reliable Pete Postlethwaite seems mainly interested in doing a funny voice, and John C. Reilly thinks he’s in a comedy. However Tim Roth puts in the best performance of his career as a good-natured, multilayered lawyer. But when looking at this film, the work of most of the players is of no importance as this is really a one-woman show. The woman is Jennifer Connelly and she is superb. OK, finding a time when Connelly isn’t first rate would require going back nearly two decades, but even for her, this is excellent. She makes Dahlia believable and sympathetic, though not simple. This is a real person in pain and it is impossible not to share that with her. The one reason to seek out this movie is to watch Connelly.

Unfortunately there aren’t other reasons. It is amazing how closely the original is followed and to what very different effect. There are no substantial alterations in the story. But here it is played as if the ghost is merely in Dahlia’s head. It was already a metaphor, but now it is also a product of a broken mind. The idea that the monster isn’t real was clever in the 1930s, but it has gotten very old by now. Actually, it was old by the ’50s and is unpleasant now. I’m always amazed to find a producer/director/writer who still thinks that’s the height of intelligent filmmaking.

The slight plot was workable with chills to fill in the extra time. Without those, the movie is about twice as long as it should be. Every conversation goes on longer than needed. We’re given endless flashbacks where the point was clear after the first. There’s even a dream sequence which the filmmakers admit is there because they liked the footage of the flooded apartment, and didn’t have any place to put it; note to Hollywood: if a scene doesn’t fit in your movie, no matter how good it is, cut it.

The Japanese Dark Water was a worthwhile entry in the J-Horror movement. Far from groundbreaking, its mix of message and frights was effective. The American remake is a pretty film that shows off the impressive talent of Jennifer Connelly, but is otherwise misconceived.

Jennifer Connelly’s other genre works are the cult horror flick, Phenomena (1985), the juvenile fantasy Labyrinth (1986), the retro sci-fi The Rocketeer (1991), the future noir Dark City (1998), and the maudlin superhero misfire, Hulk (2003).

Back to Ghost Stories

Ghost Stories, Reviews Tagged with: Two Reels

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Mar 042005

Saved from the destruction of Earth by hitchhiking with his friend Ford Prefect (Mos Def), who is secretly an alien, Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman) finds himself on a stolen spaceship with the dim-witted, two-headed Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), an astrophysicist girl from Earth, Trillian (Zooey Deschanel), and a depressed robot. Together, they seek the question of life, the universe, and everything.

To discuss 2005’s The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, I need to mention the previous incarnations of Douglas Adams’ story. Don’t worry, I’m not going to condemn or venerate this version for how closely it emulates the others. But no review is done in a vacuum, and I am not coming up with a quality rating in a void, but a suggestion on whether or not you should see the film.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy started as a multi-part radio play. It was a satire with fast paced wit of a kind seldom heard on radio (or in any medium). It is hard to find a single line which isn’t funny, and yet there is a great deal to think about, if you are so inclined. A second, lesser radio play followed, along with novels, a stage production, and a six part BBC TV series. As the goal was laughs and satire, the plot was not sacrosanct, though they all started in the same place. What was important was to keep the humor and the cynical examination of humanity and our society, and this they all did (well, I only have the vaguest of reports on the stage play, but as you are as unlikely to see it as I, I’ll just assume it is a thing of beauty, like digital watches).

So, after some twenty years of attempts, this wonderfully twisted work has found its way to the big screen, fueled with tons of cash and the latest special effects, with the result…the result being proof that lots of money doesn’t buy quality.

Missing, or forgetting, the fundamentals of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the filmmakers (which included Adams for a time before his death) go for plot and slapstick over meaning and wit. There’s a lot of material to be jammed into a film (the television version is twice as long), so I understand having to cut, but instead of removing sections, they just chopped out all the jokes from each scene, leaving a rather flat adventure tale. An excellent example of how the film went so wrong can be seen in the changes made between the series and the movie when a contractor tells Arthur he should have looked at the plans for the bypass that’s about to go through his house, as they have been on display in the local planning office.

TV version:
Arthur: “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
Contractor: “That’s the display department.”
Arthur: “With a flashlight.”
Contractor: “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
Arthur: “So had the stairs.”
Contractor: “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
Arthur: “Yes, yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard. Have you considered going into advertising.”

Film Version:
Arthur: “On display? I had to go down to a cellar.”

Having to go down to a cellar isn’t funny. More importantly, two people discussing the plans being in the cellar isn’t funny. There’s nothing ridiculous about plans being in a cellar. And so it goes for the entire film. We get the setup for a joke, and then no joke. We get the buildup for a satirical jab, and then nothing.

As this is a Hollywood film, we’re also handed unnecessary, un-engaging, and unfunny romances, one with Arthur and Trillian and another with Zaphod and the vice president of the galaxy. The director has stated that he likes the first of those as it is emotionally satisfying (actually, he shoves in multiple “emotionally satisfying scenes,” such as the “switching on of life” on Earth). But this story isn’t supposed to be emotionally satisfying. It is supposed to be funny. And these romances take even more time away from the comedy. The message suffers even worse as it is missing. The soul of the story has been sucked dry.

There are plenty of nifty effects. The vogons, hulking green aliens with bad dispositions, have more life than many of the actors, and are some of the Henson Company’s best puppetry. The space ships are also bright and shinny. But then if I want cool effects with little depth, I’ll watch Revenge of the Sith (which has far niftier effects).

Martin Freeman makes an adequate, though flat Arthur. There is no zing to his delivery, but he’s an acceptable everyman. Mos Def appears to be high or drunk for half of the movie, tending to mumble. It doesn’t make a lot of difference as Ford’s part has been reduced to that of a guy who’s just hanging around. Zooey Deschanel does OK with the role she’s given, but it is a poor one. Her job is now to emote sadness at her relationship problems, which, not surprisingly, supplies no laughs and as many insights into the human condition. Zaphod, in any version, is a tricky character, walking the thin line between amusing and stupid. Sam Rockwell’s Elvis combined with Bill Clinton interpretation wildly leaps onto the wrong side of that line. Instead of wit, he gives us pelvic thrusts and high kicks. I will give the director credit for attempting something different with Zaphod’s second head. It doesn’t work, but I don’t recall ever seeing an effective two-headed person on film (or in life for that matter). Only Stephen Fry, as the voice of The Guide, and Alan Rickman, as the voice of the depressed robot, Marvin, appear to understand their roles. However, Fry’s work is diminished by the bland visuals displayed when Guide passages are read.

John Malkovich makes a brief appearance as a character who has no part in the film, though does have nice spindly, special effect, metal legs. The additional material stuck in for this character isn’t humorous as the joke is already in the story as a brief guide entry—this just makes the joke longer. One minute jokes are rarely as funny when told over ten minutes. This new character is also a second act motivation for the leads, giving them reason to quest for a gun. But they were going to where the gun was anyway, and the gun’s only purpose in the film is to provoke yet another emotional moment for Zooey, so would have been best left out of the story. But, at least I have nothing bad to say about Malkovich’s performance.

Watching the big screen adaptation of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is like reading Cliff Notes. It ruins the work if you don’t know it, and is unnecessary if you do. If you don’t know any version, don’t start here. Get the radio play or the BBC series. If you are a fan, you might want to see this as a curiosity, though probably not.

Reviews, Space Opera Tagged with: One Reel

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005)

Feb 272005

Four children, Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), Peter (William Moseley), and Susan (Anna Popplewell), sent to the country to avoid the blitz, travel through a magical wardrobe to the land of Narnia, where an evil witch (Tilda Swinton) keeps the land in perpetual winter. A prophecy declares that four humans will start the overthrow of the witch queen, so she attempts to destroy them. Edmund betrays his siblings and joins with the witch, who makes him a prisoner. The others, aided by a pair of talking Beavers as well as by Father Christmas, who gives them weapons and magical items, seek out the great lion, Aslan (Liam Neeson), and his army.

C.S. Lewis was first and foremost, a Christian pop philosopher. He wrote many essays on God and morality for an adult audience. The Chronicles of Narnia was his shot at kids. The allegory is overwhelming for anyone out of grammar school. Aslan the lion is Jesus who dies for the sins of man (still disobedience, but this time it is in the form of treachery instead of apple-eating) and rises again. He has the answers to all questions and is good, though not tame. The basic theme is clear: You should fight against evil in your life, but in the end, you can’t win; you must give yourself to Christ, and through him, you will be saved. Lewis wraps his preaching in a fantasy world of fawns, talking animals, and magic.

Now the problem isn’t with the not-so-hidden religious message, per se. It’s too hammer-like for me, but then it was intended for children. The difficulty is that what makes a good story is not necessarily what we want in our real lives. I’d love to have all things handed to me in my life, but in fiction, I want to watch a protagonist overcome huge obstacles in order to reach his goal. In Narnia, the message eliminates that structure. There are no protagonists. Rather, there are four main characters who don’t do anything. They don’t overcome anything and they don’t win. It is all done for them. All they need to do is give themselves to Aslan and he takes care of the rest. It’s all quite nice, but it isn’t riveting literature.

The film keeps the main flaws of the book. The lead characters are still of little importance. They are also an unlikable bunch, set to fulfill adult stereotypes of children. Peter is bland, Susan, who is supposed to be bright, uses “logic” to say one stupid thing after another, and Edmund is nasty for the sake of being nasty. Lucy is the only one I had even the slightest touch of sympathy for. Before they enter Narnia, the film has nothing but these four in an over-long opening, making it feel even longer.

In most films, these flaws would be insurmountable, but not here. While the humans are drab, the rest of the characters are astounding. Makeup, digital effects, and acting (sometimes just voice acting) create one wonder after another. Believable fauns and centaurs join with majestic gryphons to battle flawlessly conceived minotaurs. Beavers, wolves, and foxes speak; it does not appear that fake lips have been superimposed on real animals or that computer critters are chatting. These are wild animals…talking. I was ready to type that the faun, Mr. Tumnus was the most amazing, and before I could put my fingers to the keyboard I’d changed that to the beavers, and then to a berserker centaur. There’s no way to choose. And all of these fantastic creatures are not just eye candy. They display real emotion and personality. Here are the characters I can care about. If this had been a film where the Beavers teamed with Mr. Tumnus to lead the army to victory, it could have been one of the finest fantasy films ever made. It is still great to watch.

Every bit as good as the non-humans is the inhuman Queen, brought to unholy life by Tilda Swinton. She is a villain for the ages and Swinton gives her a glare that few would dare to hold. She combines cruel parental authority, Satanic sadism, and a warlord’s combat efficiency. She’s at her best, as is the film, on the battlefield, where no one but a god would want to face her.

The Chronicles of Narnia is the third fantasy series in recent years. It joins with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter to put monsters and magic on the top of box office charts. In book form, Lord of the Rings is fitting for adults while Harry Potter is for the whole family, and Narnia is for the kids. In film form, Narnia is less age restrictive, and should interest the same audience as Harry Potter. Comparing the three (because everyone is going to), Narnia has the most stunning creatures, but lags behind the others in engaging leads, and the complexity of the world. The land of Narnia seems to consist of one castle, a few small homes, an altar, and a battlefield. It also lacks the “realism” (verisimilitude actually; go look it up) of the other two. It should be a cold place, but children run about in the “snow” without a shiver and plummet into near-frozen rivers without fear of hypothermia.

I was left with an odd feeling about at least some of the residents of Naria. They are astonishingly lacking in empathy. In this place, where horses and badgers speak, a fox makes escape plans, and cheetahs gladly fight side-by-side with humans, the four “heroes” go on a stag hunt for fun (that might mean something else in the book, but this isn’t the book). Can they hear the stag pleading for its life? Do they just not care? They really don’t sound all that much nicer than the Witch.

Back to Fantasy

Christmas, Christmastime, Fantasy, Reviews Tagged with: Three Reels

Batman Begins (2005)

Feb 262005

Unable to deal with the death of his parents and the evil of men, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) joins the League of Shadows. With his training complete, he rejects their call to mercilessly kill all criminals, instead returning to Gotham to become Batman. There with the help of Alfred (Michael Caine), technical genius Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), district attorney Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), and not-yet-Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), he fights to stop crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), and the leader of the League, Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson).

Batman Begins copies wholesale from the 1994 film, The Shadow, to the point that it is nearly a remake. Scriptwriter David Goyer acknowledged his pilfering. It’s fair, since in 1937, Batman was created as a Shadow rip-off. Well, you can’t say that the thieving was done haphazardly or cheaply. This is a meticulously made film and everything that was stolen was done so lovingly.

There’s plenty of action. While others have found the fight scenes to be the weakest element of the film, I thought the choreography was more than adequate. But Batman Begins is more drama than fight-fest anyway. Luckily, the story is coherent. Character interaction is a high point of the flick, with one exception. Rachel follows in the tradition of bland love-interests. She speaks in platitudes. But even if she was well written, Katie Holmes lacks the maturity for the role. It’s a kid playing dress-up.

In attempting to remove the cartoon elements, the villains end up underwhelming. Falcone is a stereotypical crime boss. Earle (Rutger Hauer) is a stereotypical evil businessman. The Scarecrow looks like a teenanger. And Ra’s Al Ghul is just some British bloke. Do you think that perhaps someone named Ra’s Al Ghul should be Arabic? I suppose the Lazarus Pit and ancient mystic powers don’t belong in this world, but something should have been found to spice up the bad guys.

Like all of Nolan’s Batman films, the movie is message-heavy; it’s all about what makes a criminal and the nature of fear. The fear theme is overdone and too often repeated. At times this feels more like Green Lantern. Yes…a man without fear. Yes, will can counter fear. Yes, fear can be a weapon. Yes, I get it. Move along.

For a film that is the antidote for camp, Batman Begins can be pretty silly. The bat-summoner and microwave bomb are devices best suited for Adam West. The finale is goofy, which is a fatal flaw in a film begging to be taken seriously. No one bothers to search out where that military vehicle came from? How many people at Wayne Enterprises had to know about it? Fox makes a drug antidote like he’s a super scientist? And let’s not talk about how all the water would be vaporized if the microwave bomb made it to Wayne Towers. This is all silly stuff.

For a film that’s been given the label “gritty realism,” it ends up being a fanciful superhero flick, with 50% less fun.

Reviews, Superhero Tagged with: Three Reels

Nolan’s Batman

Feb 252005

Batman Begins (2005)
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Batman Begins changed the superhero genre. There had been serious (and self-serious) genre films before, but they’d been rare and generally failures. More often than not, comic book-based films made fun of the source material. And Batman had fallen into camp. Christopher Nolan’s vision of Batman won both critical and popular acclaim and made respecting comics the new normal. Not that Nolan was a purest. He took what he wanted and changed the rest.

batbale Of course the path of the serious superhero film was almost immediately taken too far, with Nolan’s protégé, Zack Snyder, plowing superheroes into overly serious exercises in pretension. But Nolin had a better handle on it. He shot Batman the same as he would any noir-flavored action picture. He brought in themes beyond “friendship is magic.” He had money and knew where to spend it. His trilogy looks good and is skillfully, sometimes excruciatingly, crafted. For the first time since Superman (1978), superhero films had an epic.

While it is easy to argue that the trilogy is art, that doesn’t mean it is all brilliant. Each film has its failings (Rises is overflowing with them), but there are two weakness that stream through them all.

First, filmmaking has a language. How you use that language communicates things. The lighting and angles of film noir indicate that the world is dangerous and sick. The deep colors and rich designs of a Tim Burton film shows that we are in a gothic dream, where human limitations don’t matter. And the natural lighting and subdued color pallet of an indie drama means the world of the film is much like the real world, so all the normal rules apply. Since anything could happen in a film, a film needs to stick to the rules so we know what is dangerous, what is suspenseful, and what the heroes need to do to win. It needs to play fair. But the Nolan films don’t. The shooting style indicates that the rules of the real world, for the most part, apply. Which means people are restrained to the possible and a massive blow to the chest kills. Nolan presents us with real world films, and then every once in a while, he shatters the rules, making it impossible to know if anything is actually dangerous. In Batman Begins there’s a nonsensical bomb that ignores physics. In The Dark Knight, The Joker has infinite resources and magical powers, allowing him to personally carry tons of explosive in his own hands. In all of the films, fatal impacts sometimes have no effect (something common in superhero films, but not in ones trying to reflect reality). These are cheats that weaken the films. If he wanted opera, make opera. If he wanted realism, than go for realism. He just mixed and matched which tears the tension away.

batbale2 And secondly, there is Batman himself. He’s not a failure, not when compared to Bat-Clooney or Bat-Kilmer, but he is less than the films called for. Partly it is his simplicity. This Batman has anger issues and wants revenge. Angry men get in bar fights. They do not dress up like a flying mammal. If the world isn’t insane (as in the old TV show), then anyone who does what Batman does needs to be a bit unhinged. Michael Keaton managed that well, creating a man unstable enough to think that putting on a cowl was reasonable. Christian Bale does not. His Batman is far too in control. No one could question Bale’s commitment. And his physicality is impressive. Plus, when it comes to expressing those anger issues, he’s a genius. But Bale himself acknowledges that he never quite succeeded.

Then there is the matter of his voice. He doesn’t just use a rougher tone as Keaton did; he goes for full on cancer-voice. It’s a cross between unintelligible and laughable, and it only got worse in the second film when Nolan decided to tweak it beyond human capability in post production. Kevin Conroy, the voice of the animated Batman, stated that the voice was ridiculous and Bale needed to stop doing it—if anyone should know, it is Conroy. It was a running joke in The Lego Movie and is the one item that seems to be tugging down the trilogies reputation in general in the last few years.

Well, lets get me in real trouble and look at each individually.

Batman Begins

Unable to deal with the death of his parents and the evil of men, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) joins the League of Shadows. With his training complete, he rejects their call to mercilessly kill all criminals, instead returning to Gotham to become Batman. There with the help of Alfred (Michael Caine), technical genius Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), district attorney Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), and not-yet-Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), he fights to stop crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), and the leader of the League, Ra’s Al Ghul (Liam Neeson).

For a film that’s been given the label “gritty realism,” it ends up being a fanciful superhero flick, with 50% less fun.

The Dark Knight (2008)

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.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Eight year’s after Batman took the blame for Harvey Dent’s crimes, Gotham City appears better on the surface, but, if anything, is worse for the 99%. In it, idealistic police officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) tries to make a difference while jewel thief Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) just tries to get by in a world that doesn’t care. Bane (Tom Hardy), trained by the League of Shadows, arrives with mysterious plans for a revolution that involves Wayne Enterprises.

The third Nolan Batman film is by far the most interesting. It is also the dumbest. It is chocked full of messages on economic inequality and terrorism and plastered with allusions to the French revolution. It also contradicts the entire point of The Dark Knight. It turns out all that stuff about the hero Gotham needs—that was all wrong. The symbol of Harvey Dent, the White Knight, was of no value at all. In fact everything that film had to say about heroism was off the mark. The entire previous film was meaningless. Well, I guess that was one way for Nolan to go. I can’t say I mind that as blaming Batman (when the Joker was an easy fall guy) was nonsensical. What I can’t figure is if this is Nolan contradicting himself with no thought, or if he came to believe that his earlier position was too naive. As he is so focused here on the plight of the 99% and the sins of the 1%, there’s a bit more ammunition for the latter.

As for the stupid parts, there’s an ancient secret prison that lack plumbing but gets Gotham City cable news. There’s the muffled Bane voice (and does Nolan have an obsession with White Brits? This is the second character he’s White-washed). There’s orphan-sight (yes, all orphans know each other). There’s the entire police force running underground together. There’s the end of the film, with its miss-timed and underpowered nuclear bomb and impossible survival. And there’s so much more.

None of the Nolan films play fair, but in this one it is harder to find a spot where it follows its own rules. Stock exchange trades that occur during an armed attack are certified. Huh. Cartilage destruction that would leave Batman in a wheelchair is simply ignored. OK. A broken back is fixed by tugging on ropes. Ummm… And in a supposedly realistic world, Bane is an old fashioned comic book super villain.

So, the movie is dim. It drags at times. Interactions with Alfred are neither fun nor interesting. Its message is delivered with the subtlety of a machinegun and still manages to be confused. It is over-stuffed with villains and heroes. Yet it might be the most enjoyable of the three. Partly that is due to Batman actually being a likable character for the first time. Partly that is due to him having a heroic arc that, while impossible, is engaging. Partly it is due to having a character that is witty and whose feelings I could care about, that being Selina Kyle. And partly it is due to it not ending as a depressing drama as its immediate predecessor, nor as a ridiculous, empty, but grim fight as the first film, but as a wild, post-apocalyptic war. Reality is tossed away. Considering how Nolan had treated reality, it was time for it to go. The big stupid fight at the end may indeed be stupid, but it is a good time.

As for the confused message, all three of the films make a mess of their messages. All three hammer on vague ideas but never say anything coherent. The first two films might have themes that are more eternal, but as they lack clarity, end up saying little. Now, five years after its release, the unfocused theme of The Dark Knight Rises seems prescient. The corruption and greed of the elites will lead to their destruction at the hands of the oppressed masses, but the revolution won’t bring anything to those masses. It is Brexit and Trump, and the only happy ending is to go off to Paris with the hot chick.

Batman had previously been seen on the big screen in the 1966 Batman: The Movie. He was rebooted for Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin before Nolan rebooted him. Zack Synder has started yet again with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

I ranked all of the theatrical Batmen.

Reviews, Superhero

Corpse Bride (2005)

Feb 022005

In a repressed society, meek Victor Van Dort (Johnny Depp) is pushed into a marriage with the surprisingly charming Victoria Everglot (voice: Emily Watson) by his rich and status seeking parents (voices: Paul Whitehouse, Tracey Ullman). Although disgusted by the prospect, the upper-class Everaglots (voices: Albert Finney, Joanna Lumley) have agreed to the arrangement due to their failing finances. After disgracing himself in front of stern Pastor Galswells (voice: Christopher Lee) at the wedding rehearsal, Victor runs off to the woods to practices his lines. Accidentally dropping the wedding ring onto the finger of a corpse at precisely the wrong moment, the Corpse Bride (voice: Helena Bonham Carter) wakes and, assuming they are now married, drags Victor to the land of the dead.

Looking like an Edward Gorey book come to life, and feeling like Gorey merged with Disney, The Corpse Bride is a twisted, macabre fairy tale that turns out to be as light as air and as subversive as mom and apple pie. Sure, there are rotting corpses running about, but they are really friendly rotting corpses that value friendship and family. There are no scares, and not much edge, but it is a charming and beautiful film that will occasionally make you laugh, but more often leave you sitting contentedly with your family around you. This is comfy-old-shoe viewing.

That it looks good is no surprise. When has a Tim Burton film not been a visual feast? And while animator Mike Johnson is listed as co-director, The Corpse Bride positively smells of Burton. It can almost be constructed from piecing together his early films. It has a blue-toned look (like Batman), gothic sensibilities (like Sleepy Hollow), uses elongated puppets (like The Nightmare Before Christmas), presents the afterlife as a wild, colorful show (like Beetle Juice), captures the poignancy in a hopeless relationship between a normal person and a “monster” (like Edward Scissorhands), has music by Danny Elfman (like Big Fish and most of the other), and stars his ladylove Helena Bonham Carter (like Planet of the Apes and two others) and Johnny Depp (like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Ed Wood, and several others). It even directly swipes comedic routines from his earlier films, such as having the lead female’s limbs drop off. And saying that much, I’ve still barely touched on the Burtonesque state of the movie. But don’t think the its cobbled-together nature hurts it. He’s lifted much of the best from those earlier works, and in general, improved upon them. No, it’s not original, but then few movies are.

The biggest advance is in the stop-motion puppetry. With built in motors, so that the characters can move without a human hand, and top figure artisans do the sculpting, these characters make Jack Skellington and his crew look medieval. There’s nothing flat or unemotional about them. They are more expressive than many big-salary actors. The movie is worth your time just to see The Corpse Bride rise out of the ground and walk forward, her veil billowing behind.

To go with the amazing stop-motion animation is an impressive array of voice talent. There are no forgettable cartoon voices here, nor are they outlandishly silly. With the likes of Tracey Ullman, Albert Finney, and the always overwhelming Christopher Lee doing support work, it is astounding that the leads are even noticeable. But Depp and Watson project warmth that is hard to ignore. However, the film belongs to Helena Bonham Carter, who is funny, exuberant, morose, and sexy, often at the same time. And anyone who can manage sexy when her character’s skin is rotting and a worm keeps popping out of her eye socket is doing something right.

But, like a majority of Burton’s movies, he can’t get everything to work. He’s a master of the look, but other areas of filmmaking seem to allude him. In this case, the biggest problem is that this is a musical. Burton did work at Disney for several years, so it was there that he was infected with the notion that anything animated must involve characters suddenly breaking into song. There is no reason for it here, and it takes away from the quirky nature of the piece. This is no jab at musicals. I’m quite a fan, but sometimes, for some stories, no one needs to dance. Additionally, a musical needs great, memorable songs, not ones that are merely pleasant. There is a reason why that mutilation of a fairy tale, The Little Mermaid is a “classic” while the corruption of American history, Pocahontas, is a stain on popular culture. In a musical, the music is everything (thus the clever name of the genre).

Now Danny Elfman is a fine composer of background and theme music, but he is not a man who can write a tune that you can hum. His songs tend to sound alike, and even the ones that display some variety are easy to forget. After Corpse Bride, I was unable to recall a single melody. What is easier to remember is how the film slows whenever anyone sings. Thankfully, there is a bit of the story told in the songs, but nothing that couldn’t have been done quicker, more efficiently, and more enjoyably without a string section.

And without the songs, more focus could have been given to the story, which starts out well, but get bumpy toward the end. In order to wrap things up quickly, we’re presented with one plot contrivance after another. The mere presence of the villain in the story pushes plausibility. His happening to show up in the right place, at the right time, and do the wrong thing is just lazy writing. And to top it off, it all ends far too conventionally. Apparently Burton felt constrained by the Jewish folk tale that is the bases for the film.

Burton has made yet another of his flawed gems, and this time, the sparkle wins out. It should holdup well over time and to many viewings.

And a trivia note: As an homage to the master of stop-motion animation, Victor and Victoria play a duet on a piano which is clearly labeled as a Harryhausen. Ray Harryhausen was the unchallenged champion of the technique, which he used to great affect in The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958), Jason and the Argonauts (1963), and The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973), to name only a few.

Back to Zombies

Reviews, Zombies Tagged with: Four Reels

Aeon Flux (2005)

Jan 282005

400 years after most of the human race was wiped out by a virus, the last people on earth live in Bregna, an utopian city ruled by scientist Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas). Although everything is beautiful, people are depressed for unknown reasons, and citizens disappear without explanation, so rebels (known as Monicans) send their finest agent, Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron), to kill Trevor. But no one is who they seem to be: Trevor’s may be the savior of mankind, Trevor’s brother (Jonny Lee Miller) may be a traitor, the Monican leader may be a fool, and Aeon may be a completely different person than she thinks, with ties to Trevor. She must figure out what her strange memories mean, and what is actually going on, before she can finish her mission.

The avant-garde cartoon Aeon Flux is an unlikely source for a Hollywood feature. It followed an intensely violent, spindly assassin, and her love-hate feud with the dictator of a nearby city. Motivations were rarely spelled out, stories contradicted each other, and in the early short-shorts, she died in each episode. It was one-half brilliant artistry, and one-half drug-induced randomness. But someone decided there was a live-action shoot’em-up hidden in there, and with a cast of award-winners, they turned the strange, edgy, and wondrous incoherence of the animated series into mediocre entertainment for the masses. Considering the low box office, they miscalculated.

With so many problems inherent in the project, it’s shocking how much works. The art design for Bregna is fabulous—a mix of the 1930’s view of the city-of-tomorrow and organic technology. They avoided the two urban clichés common in sci-fi: the sterile, white, nearly empty space, and the dark, rainy, dirty, decayed inner-city. Instead, the streets are bright and airy, and hedges and flowers are everywhere. Waterfalls act as view screens, coconut-like plants fire needles as part of a security system, and grass can become spikes.

Equally satisfying is the array of gadgets, which would have fit into the cartoon (and a few did). There are telepathic messages passed through pills, a squid-like belt that can change the “phase vibration” of the wearer so he can enter rooms that are out of phase, and smart balls that come when called and can combine to blow apart walls.

With the setting in good shape, we are given a mystery worth our time. Why are all the people depressed? And so the adventure begins, with Oscar-winner Theron set to take on an army to accomplish her goal. It’s great fun for about a half hour. Then it begins to falter.

But a word first for fans of the cartoon. Simply due to prudishness, Aeon’s sexy and revealing (but not that revealing) costume has been changed to a reasonably pleasant jumpsuit. It’s interesting to hear the filmmakers explain that this had to be done, and never come up with a single reason why. Is it important? Well, that depends. Would you be bothered if in a Batman movie, the caped crusader had no cape, choosing a yellow sweater and a fluffy hat with a bat logo for his crime-fighting jaunts? Would you be annoyed if Superman replaced his outfit with a U.S. Navy uniform? Or would you find it distracting if James Bond turned up in overalls and a straw hat? If you’d be pleased with these options, then no, Aeon’s new clothing is not important. But to me, it is a constant reminder that the people who made this film had little respect for the material.

Even with a less-than-perfect wardrobe (not that Theron doesn’t look good in what she wears), we’ve got an exciting pop-corn type flick. What goes wrong? In the words of the filmmakers, they turned the film into an “old-time love story.” There’s none of that love-hate strain here. Nothing new, or pushing at the walls of acceptability. Nope, just the same-old same-old. Showing an amazing lack of imagination, the writers, director, producer, and lead actors are proud that they managed to dumb the movie down, making it as conventional as possible. And even at that lowest-common-denominator level, things don’t look good, as Marton Csokas plays Trevor as if they just increased his dosage of Prozac. I was waiting for him to nod off during the gun fights.

Worse, the great reveal of the mystery behind the rash of mental illness, which ties into the founding of the city, is information you’ll wish you’d never heard. It is obviously coming from people who have little connection to science fiction or science, and have some ridiculous notions on how memories work. The writer’s admit to never having worked in the field before, and it shows. I suppose their concept of how the city’s population has survived all these years could wow people who have never read, and have no interest in intelligently speculating on the future, but are such people going to go to this movie? At least it does have the virtue of being surprising. I did not expect their solution, having ruled it out as ludicrous. I guess they put one over on me.

Thematically, Aeon Flux is a strong proponent of ignorance. All technology (more than just technology, science and thought) are evil and cause us to lose our humanity. We should live our lives on instinct. To illustrate this, Aeon has a literal leap of faith, which is also metaphorical, bringing back a time of ignorant bliss. Luckily, this isn’t a film that’s going to convince anyone of anything. Engaging your cognitive processes while watching will only cause them to sputter and stall—there’s no fuel.

But all is not lost. Yes, Aeon Flux has little to say and none of it is interesting. It defiles the original cartoon, and is an embarrassment to its creator, Peter Chung, who says:

“The movie Trevor is so emasculated that I can’t see Aeon giving him two minutes. That’s fine, since the character in the movie … is someone named Catherine Goodchild—who only thinks she is Aeon. Ms. Flux does not actually appear in the movie.”

But, for purely mindless entertainment, it won’t ruin your evening. It is very pretty and the fights are filled with plenty of B-movie mayhem. Ms Theron’s physical attributes make many of the scenes watchable (for those of you who enjoy a beautiful woman), and her balletic moves don’t hurt. If you ask very little of Aeon Flux, it will deliver. Just try to ignore that it is trying to be anything more than a pretty dance.

Charlize Theron has appeared in the other genre films: Children of the Corn III (1995), 2 Days in the Valley (1996), The Devil’s Advocate (1997), Mighty Joe Young (1998), and The Astronaut’s Wife (1999).

Jonny Lee Miller starred in the cyberpunk, teen flick, Hackers (1995) and the tame updating of Dracula, Dracula 2000 (2000).

Dystopia, Reviews Tagged with: Two & 1/2 Reels

1 2 … 41 42 43 44 45 … 133 134