The Spirit
Comic book writer Frank Miller (300, Sin City) makes his directorial debut with The Spirit, which is unfortunately a colossal misfire that will likely please only his most devoted fans.
Gabriel Macht plays The Spirit, an ex-cop who became a superhero after narrowly escaping a brush with death. He does battle with villains The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) and Silken Floss (Scarlett Johansson) while also pursuing his former childhood flame Sand Saref (Eva Mendes). All of the characters are in pursuit of a mysterious vase.
The movie goes wrong in so many ways it’s hard to capture them all in a short review. In the leading role, Gabriel Macht is so devoid of charisma that he makes Al Gore seem like a cross between Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, and Robert Downey, Jr. Samuel L. Jackson mails in another one of his “I’M SAMUEL L. JACKSON!!!!” performances as the villain. Scarlett Johansson just looks bored.
The writing isn’t much better. Both hero and villain are nearly immortal and survive all sorts of things that would kill a person many times over, so it never really feels like much is at stake. The faux hard-boiled narration isn’t even good enough for a TV movie.
Even Seven Pounds is preferable to The Spirit, which is easily one of the worst films of the year.
Valkyrie
After the bloated monstrosity that was Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men) recovers with Valkyrie, a solid thriller about a failed attempt by German officers to assassinate Adolf Hitler.
Tom Cruise plays a disillusioned German officer who is maimed in combat in North Africa. When he returns to an administrative job in Berlin, he is recruited by some superiors (Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy) to join a group that hopes to stage a coup and forge a truce with the Allies before it’s too late. The challenge is not just assassinating Hitler, but insuring that the military and reserves fall in line after the fact. The film starts slowly, but it gains momentum and increasing sense of dread as the assassination attempt occurs at about the halfway mark – a reasonably impressive achievement since viewers already know the ultimate outcome for the protagonists.
Happily, Cruise does not even attempt a German accent. All he does exhibit his innate movie star charisma, something that was easy to forget about in recent years with his distracting behavior off-screen. He doesn’t go for the Oscar, nor does anyone else in the film, but that’s fine. Everyone involved seems only interested in making a slick, efficient thriller based on actual events. And they succeed.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Milk & Seven Pounds....
Milk
In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Gus Van Sant’s film Milk feels especially timely. It tells the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), the country’s first openly gay politician. In the 1970s, Milk was elected to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.
Milk generally follows the conventional bio-pic template. That being said, it’s a good formula biopic. Penn does excellent work in the lead. Even though his performance is showy, it’s never overbearing. Ditto Gus Van Sant’s direction – his most recent films (especially Last Days) have been endurance tests, but he finds a way here to inject his own quirky visual sensibility into something that could have been a TV movie of the week in the wrong hands.
All in all, this is a well-made film about a man many people know very little about. And it serves as a bracing reminder of how far the gay rights movement has come and how far it still has to go.
Seven Pounds
It’s generally a bad sign when the climax of a movie that aims to be powerful and moving elicits more giggles than tears, but that’s the case with the new Will Smith showcase, Seven Pounds.
Smith plays a tormented IRS agent who decides to play the role of fairy godmother to an assortment of down-on-their-luck types (among them Rosario Dawson and Woody Harrelson). The film has a boatload of narrative problems. Chief among them is the fact that there is very little conflict in the film’s 120 minute running time. Smith just hops from good deed to good deed with virtually no obstacles blocking his path.
In addition to this, the film is coy about revealing the source of Smith’s torment. It aims to be a mystery, but it’s one that any non-comatose viewer could see coming from a mile away. As a result, Smith’s character development is virtually non-existent and viewers are left with an agonizingly slow moving film.
In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Gus Van Sant’s film Milk feels especially timely. It tells the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), the country’s first openly gay politician. In the 1970s, Milk was elected to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.
Milk generally follows the conventional bio-pic template. That being said, it’s a good formula biopic. Penn does excellent work in the lead. Even though his performance is showy, it’s never overbearing. Ditto Gus Van Sant’s direction – his most recent films (especially Last Days) have been endurance tests, but he finds a way here to inject his own quirky visual sensibility into something that could have been a TV movie of the week in the wrong hands.
All in all, this is a well-made film about a man many people know very little about. And it serves as a bracing reminder of how far the gay rights movement has come and how far it still has to go.
Seven Pounds
It’s generally a bad sign when the climax of a movie that aims to be powerful and moving elicits more giggles than tears, but that’s the case with the new Will Smith showcase, Seven Pounds.
Smith plays a tormented IRS agent who decides to play the role of fairy godmother to an assortment of down-on-their-luck types (among them Rosario Dawson and Woody Harrelson). The film has a boatload of narrative problems. Chief among them is the fact that there is very little conflict in the film’s 120 minute running time. Smith just hops from good deed to good deed with virtually no obstacles blocking his path.
In addition to this, the film is coy about revealing the source of Smith’s torment. It aims to be a mystery, but it’s one that any non-comatose viewer could see coming from a mile away. As a result, Smith’s character development is virtually non-existent and viewers are left with an agonizingly slow moving film.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Standard Operating Procedure and City of Ember....
Standard Operating Procedure
Even though it never opened in theaters here in New Orleans, the new film by acclaimed documentarian Errol Morris (The Fog of War, The Thin Blue Line) is out on DVD and definitely worth a look.
The documentary focuses on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. A number of the soldiers prosecuted for abuse are interviewed and Morris successfully pulls off the balancing act of humanizing the soldiers without condoning their actions. A great deal of time is spent on the day-to-day horrors of war and how they can wear on a person’s psyche and make them do things they otherwise wouldn’t do. However, the film refuses to shy away from the fact that the abuses were real, criminal, and went a long way towards making the war in Iraq seem something far less noble than a mission of liberation.
Aside from its ruminations on the Iraq War, Standard Operating Procedure also provides an interesting examination of the nature of photography and how an image frozen in time is irrefutable, but also fails to show the full picture.
Like last year’s excellent documentary No End in Sight, Standard Operating Procedure is not easy viewing, but it is essential viewing for people looking for a deeper understanding of the current war.
City of Ember
City of Ember is not a bad film. It has some interesting ideas and noble lessons about the importance of individuals taking action and refusing to accept the word of an authority figure solely because they’re in charge, but the overall result lacks a spark and feels like it’s missing something.
In a futuristic world, the surface of Earth has become uninhabitable and the residents have fled underground. Centuries later, the underground civilization is running out of resources (thanks in large part to the corrupt mayor, well played by Bill Murray). Two plucky adolescents (Saiorse Ronan and Harry Treadaway) do their best to save the day.
Again, the film is sometimes intriguing, but it falls into a sort of no man’s land. It’s too scary for young children, but it’s not quite exciting enough to be really stimulating for older kids. Ultimately, it’s a well-intentioned film that’s hard to really bash, but it’s also hard to recommend.
Even though it never opened in theaters here in New Orleans, the new film by acclaimed documentarian Errol Morris (The Fog of War, The Thin Blue Line) is out on DVD and definitely worth a look.
The documentary focuses on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. A number of the soldiers prosecuted for abuse are interviewed and Morris successfully pulls off the balancing act of humanizing the soldiers without condoning their actions. A great deal of time is spent on the day-to-day horrors of war and how they can wear on a person’s psyche and make them do things they otherwise wouldn’t do. However, the film refuses to shy away from the fact that the abuses were real, criminal, and went a long way towards making the war in Iraq seem something far less noble than a mission of liberation.
Aside from its ruminations on the Iraq War, Standard Operating Procedure also provides an interesting examination of the nature of photography and how an image frozen in time is irrefutable, but also fails to show the full picture.
Like last year’s excellent documentary No End in Sight, Standard Operating Procedure is not easy viewing, but it is essential viewing for people looking for a deeper understanding of the current war.
City of Ember
City of Ember is not a bad film. It has some interesting ideas and noble lessons about the importance of individuals taking action and refusing to accept the word of an authority figure solely because they’re in charge, but the overall result lacks a spark and feels like it’s missing something.
In a futuristic world, the surface of Earth has become uninhabitable and the residents have fled underground. Centuries later, the underground civilization is running out of resources (thanks in large part to the corrupt mayor, well played by Bill Murray). Two plucky adolescents (Saiorse Ronan and Harry Treadaway) do their best to save the day.
Again, the film is sometimes intriguing, but it falls into a sort of no man’s land. It’s too scary for young children, but it’s not quite exciting enough to be really stimulating for older kids. Ultimately, it’s a well-intentioned film that’s hard to really bash, but it’s also hard to recommend.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People....
The new film How to Lose Friends and Alienate People made me appreciate the woefully underseen 2005 Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang even more (Netflix it now). The two films' plots bear virtually no resemblance to each other. However, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang featured a protagonist (Robert Downey Jr's character) who was often a self-sabotaging idiot, but you still root for him. The excellent script makes him seem just charming, glib, and smart enough to laugh at his misadventures without wanting to throttle him. It's a tightrope walk, but Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang pulled it off.
In How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, the audience is supposed to be charmed by the boorish antics of the lead character played by Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). Pegg plays a British tabloid journalist whose irreverent stunts attract the attention of a major New York celebrity magazine. Once there, Pegg proceeds to behave in an oafish manner and does several stunts that would have had him fired many times over from any job on Earth. He does not come across as charming. He does not come across as witty. He does not even come off as a charismatic anti-hero. He comes off as a @#@#ing idiot.
A little over an hour into the film, Pegg morphs via montage into a sought-after celebrity journalist. It was not good leading up to this point, but after this montage, it really flies off the rails and just becomes woefully dull. The one good thing about this film is Jeff Bridges' skillful performance as the boss of Pegg's new magazine. Sadly, Bridges all but disappears from the film after a point, leaving us to just check our watches and wait for the film to be over.
In How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, the audience is supposed to be charmed by the boorish antics of the lead character played by Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). Pegg plays a British tabloid journalist whose irreverent stunts attract the attention of a major New York celebrity magazine. Once there, Pegg proceeds to behave in an oafish manner and does several stunts that would have had him fired many times over from any job on Earth. He does not come across as charming. He does not come across as witty. He does not even come off as a charismatic anti-hero. He comes off as a @#@#ing idiot.
A little over an hour into the film, Pegg morphs via montage into a sought-after celebrity journalist. It was not good leading up to this point, but after this montage, it really flies off the rails and just becomes woefully dull. The one good thing about this film is Jeff Bridges' skillful performance as the boss of Pegg's new magazine. Sadly, Bridges all but disappears from the film after a point, leaving us to just check our watches and wait for the film to be over.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Righteous Kill and Lakeview Terrace...
Righteous Kill
If this were the 70s, 80s, or even early 90s, it would be a lot easier to get excited about a film featuring both Robert De Niro and Al Pacino (1995’s Heat and 1974’s The Godfather Part II featured both, but they share only one scene in the former and none in the latter). But, as the 90s passed, both actors became much less selective about their roles and watching them became more like watching once great athletes stumble - think Earl Campbell limping around in a Saints uniform.
Sadly, Righteous Kill is a weak thriller about two partners (Pacino and De Niro) pursuing a serial killer who targets criminals. Eventually, De Niro finds himself the prime suspect. The plot here revolves around a big “twist,” albeit it’s one that viewers should be able to guess from a mile away. The story seems like a TV movie of the week and the two headline actors seem to just be going through the motions.
Like all movie fans, I hope for De Niro and Pacino to recapture some of their old magic, but it doesn’t happen in Righteous Kill.
Lakeview Terrace
The previews for this film are misleading. It’s not quite the stalker-from-hell film the marketing campaign has made it out to be. Lakeview Terrace tells the story of an interracial couple (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) who move into a new neighborhood, only to find themselves hassled by their policeman neighbor (Samuel L. Jackson).
The movie touches on some interesting issues: the challenges interracial couples face, the bad things that happen when fundamentally decent people receive one slight too many and feel the need to lash out at something, anything. The problem here is the Samuel L. Jackson character is never fully realized. It seems as if the script wants to make him a three dimensional antagonist, someone who’s gradually becoming unhinged after too many hits from life. But, the problem is, he seems too overtly sinister from the get-go and Jackson’s performance doesn’t help, either. He’s in full-tilt crazy mode, kind of like Dave Chappelle’s parody of him in the Samuel Jackson beer commercial skit from the Chappelle’s Show. A subtler performance would have been much better here.
All in all, a near miss.
If this were the 70s, 80s, or even early 90s, it would be a lot easier to get excited about a film featuring both Robert De Niro and Al Pacino (1995’s Heat and 1974’s The Godfather Part II featured both, but they share only one scene in the former and none in the latter). But, as the 90s passed, both actors became much less selective about their roles and watching them became more like watching once great athletes stumble - think Earl Campbell limping around in a Saints uniform.
Sadly, Righteous Kill is a weak thriller about two partners (Pacino and De Niro) pursuing a serial killer who targets criminals. Eventually, De Niro finds himself the prime suspect. The plot here revolves around a big “twist,” albeit it’s one that viewers should be able to guess from a mile away. The story seems like a TV movie of the week and the two headline actors seem to just be going through the motions.
Like all movie fans, I hope for De Niro and Pacino to recapture some of their old magic, but it doesn’t happen in Righteous Kill.
Lakeview Terrace
The previews for this film are misleading. It’s not quite the stalker-from-hell film the marketing campaign has made it out to be. Lakeview Terrace tells the story of an interracial couple (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) who move into a new neighborhood, only to find themselves hassled by their policeman neighbor (Samuel L. Jackson).
The movie touches on some interesting issues: the challenges interracial couples face, the bad things that happen when fundamentally decent people receive one slight too many and feel the need to lash out at something, anything. The problem here is the Samuel L. Jackson character is never fully realized. It seems as if the script wants to make him a three dimensional antagonist, someone who’s gradually becoming unhinged after too many hits from life. But, the problem is, he seems too overtly sinister from the get-go and Jackson’s performance doesn’t help, either. He’s in full-tilt crazy mode, kind of like Dave Chappelle’s parody of him in the Samuel Jackson beer commercial skit from the Chappelle’s Show. A subtler performance would have been much better here.
All in all, a near miss.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Step Brothers and Pineapple Express....
Here's a look at two new comedies I found disappointing on various levels...
Step Brothers
Since this marked Will Ferrell's reunion with co-writer/director Adam McKay (the two previously collaborated on Anchorman and Talladega Nights), I was pretty excited. Sadly, Step Brothers botches a great premise. Ferrell plays a man still living with his mother (Mary Steenburgen). John C. Reilly plays a man still living with his dad (Richard Jenkins). The mom and dad fall in love and marry, prompting the families to move in together. Hijinks ensue.
Considering the setup and the talent involved, this should all work wonderfully. And there are a few isolated funny moments throughout. However, the film doesn't work. A big reason is that it desperately needs a straight man. It would have been fairly easy to create comic gold out of the Reilly and Ferrell characters interacting with relatively normal people. But every single character in Step Brothers acts as if they're completely deranged at all times. The result is a very shrill, unpleasant movie that consists of a lot of people yelling at each other.
Another point brought up by The Onion A.V. Club in their review is worth mentioning. Characters like Ferrell and Reilly would likely behave like arrested adolescents, kind of like the guys in Knocked Up. Here, however, they really act more like 8 or 9 year olds.
The end result is a film that has some occasional laughs, but is tremendously disappointing because it could have been so much better.
Pineapple Express
This is better than Step Brothers, but it's still a disappointment. Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin) plays a process server who witnesses a murder. He ends up on the run with his pot dealer (James Franco). What follows is a variant on the cinematic staple of the 1980's, the buddy comedy.
For about an hour or so, Pineapple Express is amusing and works reasonably well as an action comedy. Unfortunately, it goes off the rails in its final 30-45 minutes when it mostly ditches the comedy and becomes an out and out action movie (and a surprisingly nasty, gory one at that). Defenders of the film will likely point to 80's fare like Beverly Hills Cop and Midnight Run, two films that blended comedy with action. But those films had a more consistent tone. Despite the early murder in Pineapple Express, the tone of the first hour or so of the film is that of a stoner comedy. Then it shifts into a very violent action film.
Midnight Run actually managed to have a clever, tense finale without resorting to all-out mayhem. Yes, Beverly Hills Cop's final act is heavy on the bullets, somewhat gratuitously so, but that film felt all along like it was building to a violent confrontation. As much of an irreverent smart-ass as Axel Foley was, he still journeyed halfway around the country to avenge the death of his childhood friend and he was, after all, a cop. So when he trades bullets with bad guys, it doesn't seem as jarring as in Pineapple Express, where two guys who have probably never handled guns in their lives are suddenly engaged in intense fighting/shootouts with two different armies of drug dealers.
Rogen and his co-writer, Evan Goldberg, scripted a movie last summer, Superbad, that effectively riffed on the "into the night" subgenre of 80's movies (e.g. Into the Night, After Hours). Here, they try to riff on the buddy action comedy, but come up short.
Step Brothers
Since this marked Will Ferrell's reunion with co-writer/director Adam McKay (the two previously collaborated on Anchorman and Talladega Nights), I was pretty excited. Sadly, Step Brothers botches a great premise. Ferrell plays a man still living with his mother (Mary Steenburgen). John C. Reilly plays a man still living with his dad (Richard Jenkins). The mom and dad fall in love and marry, prompting the families to move in together. Hijinks ensue.
Considering the setup and the talent involved, this should all work wonderfully. And there are a few isolated funny moments throughout. However, the film doesn't work. A big reason is that it desperately needs a straight man. It would have been fairly easy to create comic gold out of the Reilly and Ferrell characters interacting with relatively normal people. But every single character in Step Brothers acts as if they're completely deranged at all times. The result is a very shrill, unpleasant movie that consists of a lot of people yelling at each other.
Another point brought up by The Onion A.V. Club in their review is worth mentioning. Characters like Ferrell and Reilly would likely behave like arrested adolescents, kind of like the guys in Knocked Up. Here, however, they really act more like 8 or 9 year olds.
The end result is a film that has some occasional laughs, but is tremendously disappointing because it could have been so much better.
Pineapple Express
This is better than Step Brothers, but it's still a disappointment. Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin) plays a process server who witnesses a murder. He ends up on the run with his pot dealer (James Franco). What follows is a variant on the cinematic staple of the 1980's, the buddy comedy.
For about an hour or so, Pineapple Express is amusing and works reasonably well as an action comedy. Unfortunately, it goes off the rails in its final 30-45 minutes when it mostly ditches the comedy and becomes an out and out action movie (and a surprisingly nasty, gory one at that). Defenders of the film will likely point to 80's fare like Beverly Hills Cop and Midnight Run, two films that blended comedy with action. But those films had a more consistent tone. Despite the early murder in Pineapple Express, the tone of the first hour or so of the film is that of a stoner comedy. Then it shifts into a very violent action film.
Midnight Run actually managed to have a clever, tense finale without resorting to all-out mayhem. Yes, Beverly Hills Cop's final act is heavy on the bullets, somewhat gratuitously so, but that film felt all along like it was building to a violent confrontation. As much of an irreverent smart-ass as Axel Foley was, he still journeyed halfway around the country to avenge the death of his childhood friend and he was, after all, a cop. So when he trades bullets with bad guys, it doesn't seem as jarring as in Pineapple Express, where two guys who have probably never handled guns in their lives are suddenly engaged in intense fighting/shootouts with two different armies of drug dealers.
Rogen and his co-writer, Evan Goldberg, scripted a movie last summer, Superbad, that effectively riffed on the "into the night" subgenre of 80's movies (e.g. Into the Night, After Hours). Here, they try to riff on the buddy action comedy, but come up short.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The Dark Knight...
Every once in a while, a movie comes along that's a huge hit with the public and is a genuine artistic success. The Dark Knight is one of those movies.
Following 2005's excellent Batman Begins, The Dark Knight follows Batman/Bruce Wayne as Gotham City tries to climb back on its feet again. Mobsters are on the defensive, partly because of Batman, partly because of idealistic, crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent also happens to be dating Bruce's ex-flame Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over the role from Katie Holmes).
Things get complicated when the Joker (Heath Ledger) convinces local mobsters to pay him to kill Batman. The Joker then threatens to kill a Gotham resident a day until Batman reveals his true identity. When the Joker starts following up on his threats, things get nasty.
Director Christopher Nolan (Memento), co-writing with his brother Jonathan, uses the plot to examine ethics in a post 9/11 society. The residents of Gotham react to the Joker's terrorist tactics in different ways. Things get even more high stakes when the Joker starts putting individuals in horrible situations and forcing them to make impossible choices. He believes that under stress, people will turn into animals, and he aims to prove that. In a way, it's similar to the gimmick used by the killer in the Saw movies, except those films were only concerned with finding gory ways to kill people, while The Dark Knight is actually concerned with the moral/ethical dilemmas posed by such situations.
A lot of focus will be given to Heath Ledger's performance, partly because the Joker is a showy role and partly because of the unfortunate circumstances of his death. Is Ledger's performance up to the hype? It's a very good performance, but it doesn't take over the film. In Tim Burton's Batman, Jack Nicholson's Joker upstaged the entire film (granted, Nicholson was entertaining, but he still upstaged the film itself). Ledger does fine work here, but I think it's more impressive than Nicholson because it's an ensemble performance. Ledger's good in a showy role without upstaging the film and everyone else around him.
And there are a number of other excellent performances, too. Aaron Eckhart does good, understated work as Harvey Dent. His idealism could have been grating and over-the-top, but Eckhart handles it nicely. It's a critical role, because the real emotional arc of the film belongs not to Batman/Bruce Wayne (as it did in Batman Begins), but to Dent. Without a good performance from Eckhart, the film does not work.
Gary Oldman returns as Commissioner Gordon and he has a bigger role here than he did in Batman Begins (conversely, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman have less to do than in Batman Begins). Amidst all of the darkness and unpleasantness, Oldman is the soul of the film. The Dark Knight is upsetting, intense, and depressing stuff, but Oldman's performance grounds it in humanity.
The Dark Knight is more than just a great comic book movie. It's a genuine work of art, one of the best films of the year.
Following 2005's excellent Batman Begins, The Dark Knight follows Batman/Bruce Wayne as Gotham City tries to climb back on its feet again. Mobsters are on the defensive, partly because of Batman, partly because of idealistic, crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent also happens to be dating Bruce's ex-flame Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over the role from Katie Holmes).
Things get complicated when the Joker (Heath Ledger) convinces local mobsters to pay him to kill Batman. The Joker then threatens to kill a Gotham resident a day until Batman reveals his true identity. When the Joker starts following up on his threats, things get nasty.
Director Christopher Nolan (Memento), co-writing with his brother Jonathan, uses the plot to examine ethics in a post 9/11 society. The residents of Gotham react to the Joker's terrorist tactics in different ways. Things get even more high stakes when the Joker starts putting individuals in horrible situations and forcing them to make impossible choices. He believes that under stress, people will turn into animals, and he aims to prove that. In a way, it's similar to the gimmick used by the killer in the Saw movies, except those films were only concerned with finding gory ways to kill people, while The Dark Knight is actually concerned with the moral/ethical dilemmas posed by such situations.
A lot of focus will be given to Heath Ledger's performance, partly because the Joker is a showy role and partly because of the unfortunate circumstances of his death. Is Ledger's performance up to the hype? It's a very good performance, but it doesn't take over the film. In Tim Burton's Batman, Jack Nicholson's Joker upstaged the entire film (granted, Nicholson was entertaining, but he still upstaged the film itself). Ledger does fine work here, but I think it's more impressive than Nicholson because it's an ensemble performance. Ledger's good in a showy role without upstaging the film and everyone else around him.
And there are a number of other excellent performances, too. Aaron Eckhart does good, understated work as Harvey Dent. His idealism could have been grating and over-the-top, but Eckhart handles it nicely. It's a critical role, because the real emotional arc of the film belongs not to Batman/Bruce Wayne (as it did in Batman Begins), but to Dent. Without a good performance from Eckhart, the film does not work.
Gary Oldman returns as Commissioner Gordon and he has a bigger role here than he did in Batman Begins (conversely, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman have less to do than in Batman Begins). Amidst all of the darkness and unpleasantness, Oldman is the soul of the film. The Dark Knight is upsetting, intense, and depressing stuff, but Oldman's performance grounds it in humanity.
The Dark Knight is more than just a great comic book movie. It's a genuine work of art, one of the best films of the year.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Journey to the Center of the Earth...
Full disclosure: Journey to the Center of the Earth was filmed for 3-D, and the screening I attended did not have 3-D, so take the following review with a grain of salt.
Seeing a movie like Journey to the Center of the Earth makes one appreciate Pixar's work all the more. Films like the Toy Story films or Finding Nemo are entertaining to children and adults. Something like Journey to the Center of the Earth will likely only be enjoyed by boys under the age of 10.
Brendan Fraser plays a scientist who follows his missing brother's notes and finds an entrance to, you guessed it, the center of the earth. Along for the ride are Fraser's nephew and an attractive guide. Journey to Center of the Earth ends up playing more like an amusement park ride than an actual film. Once Fraser and company are in the center of the Earth, they encounter killer fish, dinosaurs, etc, one after the other. The problem is no real time is spent establishing the universe. Really good fantasies immerse you in a world (the Harry Potter books are an excellent example of this). Here, it feels more like a park attraction. And for that reason, young kids will probably enjoy it. But the adults will find themselves glancing at their watches and mentally planning the rest of their week before the film ends.
Seeing a movie like Journey to the Center of the Earth makes one appreciate Pixar's work all the more. Films like the Toy Story films or Finding Nemo are entertaining to children and adults. Something like Journey to the Center of the Earth will likely only be enjoyed by boys under the age of 10.
Brendan Fraser plays a scientist who follows his missing brother's notes and finds an entrance to, you guessed it, the center of the earth. Along for the ride are Fraser's nephew and an attractive guide. Journey to Center of the Earth ends up playing more like an amusement park ride than an actual film. Once Fraser and company are in the center of the Earth, they encounter killer fish, dinosaurs, etc, one after the other. The problem is no real time is spent establishing the universe. Really good fantasies immerse you in a world (the Harry Potter books are an excellent example of this). Here, it feels more like a park attraction. And for that reason, young kids will probably enjoy it. But the adults will find themselves glancing at their watches and mentally planning the rest of their week before the film ends.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Hancock....
In Hancock, Will Smith plays an alcoholic superhero in Los Angeles who has become so reckless that the citizens are almost as sick of him as they are of the criminals he fights. But after Hancock saves the life of a struggling PR man (Jason Bateman), the PR man vows to remake Hancock’s image.
Hancock gets a lot of laughs out of the premise of a slumming superhero and the attempts to transform him into a polite, politically correct public servant. Smith and Bateman are both good in the lead roles, as is Charlize Theron as Bateman’s wife.
The film (which runs just over 90 minutes) is a little rushed in its final third when it starts explaining Hancock’s origins and the film’s villain (Eddie Marsan) is not as intimidating as a good villain should be. In fact, there were times when I thought I could throw the villain through a wall, and I only weigh 145 lbs. That being said, Hancock is fast-paced and funny. It’s silly entertainment, the kind of film many people think of when they think of a good “summer movie.” The parts may be greater than the sum, but the parts are still good enough to make this a decent entertainment.
Hancock gets a lot of laughs out of the premise of a slumming superhero and the attempts to transform him into a polite, politically correct public servant. Smith and Bateman are both good in the lead roles, as is Charlize Theron as Bateman’s wife.
The film (which runs just over 90 minutes) is a little rushed in its final third when it starts explaining Hancock’s origins and the film’s villain (Eddie Marsan) is not as intimidating as a good villain should be. In fact, there were times when I thought I could throw the villain through a wall, and I only weigh 145 lbs. That being said, Hancock is fast-paced and funny. It’s silly entertainment, the kind of film many people think of when they think of a good “summer movie.” The parts may be greater than the sum, but the parts are still good enough to make this a decent entertainment.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wall-E and Get Smart....
Wall-E
This is a curious one. Yes, Pixar has made yet another good film (although at this point, the fact that Pixar releases a good film is about as unsurprising as Tiger Woods winning a golf tournament). But, what will be interesting to see about this is how young children react to it.
Wall-E is the story of a lonely robot stuck on a post-apocalyptic Earth (trash has polluted the environment to the point that the planet is no longer inhabitable). His only friend is a cockroach until one day, another robot, E.V.E., shows up. The two strike up a friendship. Eventually, they end up on a massive spaceship (that's laid out like modern day cruise ships) that houses much of humanity's descendants.
Visually, Wall-E is amazing. The story is reasonably affecting. There are laughs. The short in front of the film (featuring a magician and his rabbit) is probably the funniest short Pixar has done yet. But, Wall-E has a much more deliberate pace than most children's fare. There are long stretches with little to no dialogue. And while there is some slapstick comedy, it's not all that frequent. So, what I wonder is - will kids be restless watching this?
It's a good movie, although I wouldn't put it with Pixar's best (the Toy Story movies and Finding Nemo). I'm just wondering how kids will react to it. We shall see.
Get Smart
There are some movies that are meant to be watched on video or cable TV. Such movies are reasonably entertaining, but aren't so good that you need to watch them in the theaters. Get Smart is one of those movies. Steve Carell plays a research drone for a secret government agency. After an attack renders the agency desperate, he's promoted to field agent and teamed up with a more competent agent (Anne Hathaway).
While it's based on the old TV show, Get Smart actually bares more of a resemblance to Beverly Hills Cop, or even the little-seen Richard Grieco film If Looks Could Kill (bet you haven't thought about Richard Grieco in a while). In other words, it's just as much of an action film as it is a comedy. Some of the action scenes are well-staged, Carell is his usual funny self, and Alan Arkin has a number of very funny lines as Carell's boss.
There are some dead stretches and some of the comedy is hit-and-miss, but you'll probably enjoy yourself while watching Get Smart. But you probably won't remember it much after it's over. Like I said, the perfect kind of movie to watch if you need a diversion in the comfort of your own home.
This is a curious one. Yes, Pixar has made yet another good film (although at this point, the fact that Pixar releases a good film is about as unsurprising as Tiger Woods winning a golf tournament). But, what will be interesting to see about this is how young children react to it.
Wall-E is the story of a lonely robot stuck on a post-apocalyptic Earth (trash has polluted the environment to the point that the planet is no longer inhabitable). His only friend is a cockroach until one day, another robot, E.V.E., shows up. The two strike up a friendship. Eventually, they end up on a massive spaceship (that's laid out like modern day cruise ships) that houses much of humanity's descendants.
Visually, Wall-E is amazing. The story is reasonably affecting. There are laughs. The short in front of the film (featuring a magician and his rabbit) is probably the funniest short Pixar has done yet. But, Wall-E has a much more deliberate pace than most children's fare. There are long stretches with little to no dialogue. And while there is some slapstick comedy, it's not all that frequent. So, what I wonder is - will kids be restless watching this?
It's a good movie, although I wouldn't put it with Pixar's best (the Toy Story movies and Finding Nemo). I'm just wondering how kids will react to it. We shall see.
Get Smart
There are some movies that are meant to be watched on video or cable TV. Such movies are reasonably entertaining, but aren't so good that you need to watch them in the theaters. Get Smart is one of those movies. Steve Carell plays a research drone for a secret government agency. After an attack renders the agency desperate, he's promoted to field agent and teamed up with a more competent agent (Anne Hathaway).
While it's based on the old TV show, Get Smart actually bares more of a resemblance to Beverly Hills Cop, or even the little-seen Richard Grieco film If Looks Could Kill (bet you haven't thought about Richard Grieco in a while). In other words, it's just as much of an action film as it is a comedy. Some of the action scenes are well-staged, Carell is his usual funny self, and Alan Arkin has a number of very funny lines as Carell's boss.
There are some dead stretches and some of the comedy is hit-and-miss, but you'll probably enjoy yourself while watching Get Smart. But you probably won't remember it much after it's over. Like I said, the perfect kind of movie to watch if you need a diversion in the comfort of your own home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
