Holy Motors (2012)

Every so often a film comes along and provides you with a sharp jab to remind you why you watch movies in the first place.  2012 has been an exceptional year in film, at least in my opinion, but one has to admit that there hasn't been a lot of inspired cinema.  Then along comes a director like Leos Carax to slap you in the face with what is surely the most audacious film released this year.

There is no simple way to describe the plot of Holy Motors, but all you really need to know is that it concerns Monsieur Oscar (Denis Lavant), a man who rides around Paris in a limousine and dons several disguises.  First he's dressed as a beggar woman, then a motion capture performer, then a weird troll/leprechaun.  Lavant is a modern day Lon Chaney, and what makes the movie work so well is his total commitment to all the characters he plays.

More so then that, though, this is a film that, if you go in cold like I did, you cannot possibly predict whats going to happen next.  There is no solid narrative structure, and while that might frustrate some, it delighted and entertained me to no end.  I was at first apprehensive about the film's strange open, which features Carax himself unlocking a door with his finger that leads to a balcony of an old movie house, but I was soon swept into the world of this picture, and was eagerly anticipating what would happen next.

A lot has been made out of what this film actually means.  Some point to an ode to film's better days, when cinema was still fresh and new.  Some will say it is about the art of classic film dying out, and the old methods of making them as digital technology absorbs all aspects of the craft.  Carax himself has admitted that the film is little more then an amalgam of scenes from other features he's been trying to get off the ground for the past decade.  Each segment does feel like a snippet of a larger film, but Carax's work coalesces and never feels disjointed.  It's similar to the Wachowski's Cloud Atlas earlier this year, except better.

Whatever the case may be, Carax achieves a level of pure cinema that few other auteurs can match, the pinnacle of which is an accordion interlude in a church, that builds on itself until it reaches an ecstatic climax, then continues on.  Eva Mendes has her most bizarre role as a model that Lavant captures whilst in leprechaun/troll form, and Kylie Minogue breaks out into a musical number, though it is the weakest point of the movie for me (the lyrics are not very inspired: "Who were we, who were we, when we were who we were.")

Rarely have I been so delighted by everything in a film all at once.  It should be noted that the film does contain some graphic nudity and violence, but for those that aren't annoyed by that this film should be a feast for the eyes.  Rarely do I say this, but Holy Motors floored me, and is one of those films I will buy just so I can sit down with friends and watch their reactions to it.  Long after 2012 is past, when the dust settles and we've forgotten Les Miserables, Zero Dark Thirty, and many other awards-bait films, this one will be remembered.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 5

Robin Hood (1973)

The next few films in Disney's oeuvre are, undoubtedly, some of their roughest.  That's not to say they are the absolute worst, but without someone providing a unifying vision, the department seemed scattered and less focused.  With all that being said, Robin Hood is still one of Disney's better efforts, and probably my favorite telling of the classic story (though I may be biased).  You know it by now, Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

This is Disney's first fully anthropomorphic feature, in which human beings occupy no space within the realm of this world.  Robin Hood and Maid Marion are foxes, Little John is a bear (looking exactly like Baloo, and being voiced by Phil Harris), Prince John is a Lion, and the Sheriff of Nottingham is a...something, I'm not sure (voiced by Pat Buttram).  Robin Hood is a good time for kids, and definitely delivers the pathos in later scenes where Robin Hood's survival is briefly left unclear (one of the few Disney movies that earns its "the main character is dead PSYCH" ending).

There's a few decent songs, but nothing too memorable.  Oo-de-Lally and the Nottingham Ballad will stay with you briefly, but the rest will fall to the wayside.  Robin Hood is a solid entertainment, but its not one people always recall when listing off their favorite Disney movies, which is a shame, because its definitely better then some of Disney's other offerings.  It also borrows a lot of movements from past Disney films.  Watch this if you don't believe me.

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

I never realized it, but upon watching Winnie the Pooh after over a decade, I was struck by how brilliant this film is.  It was released in 1977, though its a compilation of three Winnie the Pooh shorts that had run in front of other Disney features in the past.  In some ways it was a greedy cash grab because it was simply repackaged and released for the public to pay for again, but I'm happy that they did it.

The various plots follow Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Piglet, Rabbit, Owl, Kanga, and Christopher Robin on their various adventures through the Hundred Acre woods.  There's Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree in which Pooh bear tries to steal honey from a hive, then gets his fat keister stuck in Rabbit's hole and proceeds to eat Rabbit's generous honey stores.  Blustery Day focuses on Piglet being a scared little fella, and Tigger Too deals with Rabbit's continued annoyances with Tigger's never ending bouncing.

The way the story is told, though, is a lot of fun.  Quite literally this is being read to us from a book, and Winnie the Pooh and friends interact with the text and break the fourth wall several times, talking directly to the narrator.  This is tricky as it can be self-serving and lazy, but somehow the writers infuse this technique with its own charm that radiates throughout the film.  There is also a sequence, dubbed Heffalumps and Woozles, that features some of Disney's best animation since the Pink Elephants on Parade from Dumbo (1941).

Finally, there's Sterling Holloway, who provides the voice of Winnie the Pooh.  A veteran of the Disney stable, and with his own great cast of characters, here Holloway gives his most memorable performance.  The voice of Pooh bear has stuck with us for generations and has become the model for anyone filling in for Holloway (who passed away in 1992).  The film ends with a poignant scene in which Christopher Robin and Pooh ruminate on the future, and the prospects it holds.  That scene resonates now as an adult more then it did when I was a child, and I can say without a doubt that The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is one of the best Disney films ever made.

The Rescuers (1977)

And with one of Disney's best comes one of Disney's worst.  The Rescuers isn't a bad film, but its a boring one and thats almost as condemnable.  It was a weird premise: a society of mice answer distress calls from around the world and set off to help those in need.  The hapless Bernard (Bob Newhart) and lovely Miss Bianca (Eva Gabor, from AristoCats) are paired together to rescue a little girl being held against her will by some crazy lady.  And they set off to rescue her.

The film makes the obvious point that even the littlest of creatures can make a big difference, as Bernard and Miss Bianca convene with several other critters to rescue the little girl, Penny, from her captor, a woman named Madame Medusa who is set on using her to retrieve a rare diamond only she can get because she's the only one small enough to fit down in the hole.  Yep.  Medusa has two crocodile pets that are the best part of the movie, and provide the funniest scene when Bernard and Bianca hide in an organ and the crocodiles play them out.

But there's no spirit of adventure or fun here, and the movie comes across as mostly flat.  Especially notable is Bob Newhart's line readings as Bernard, which are about the most emotionless I think I've ever heard.  I know Bob Newhart is a funny man and has a lot of energy, so I'll chalk this up to bad direction, leaving Newhart confused and with no other options but to read the lines in a soporific voice.  The Rescuers only runs 78 minutes, but it feels longer, and hardly leaves an impression on you.

The Fox and the Hound (1981)

This one provides a lot of people with fond childhood memories, and is definitely one of Disney's more adult-themed stories.  It starts off with the Disney signature of killing the mom and orphaning the hero, a little baby fox who is adopted by a kindly old woman.  The fox grows and develops a friendship with the neighborhood puppy, and they become the "Best of Friends."  They are Tod (Mickey Rooney) and Copper (Kurt Russell), and they are forced to learn the hard lesson that foxes and hunting dogs cannot grow up to be friends.

This could have been one Disney's best and ballsiest films if they had committed to killing off Chief (Pat Buttram again), Copper's mentor.  There's a chase that ensues, in which Chief pursues Tod onto some train tracks, and Chief is hit by a train.  This is the catalyst that sets forth the rivalry between Tod and Copper, but I don't buy it because Chief merely breaks his leg and eventually recovers.  Now, broken legs are bad, but they are by no means the basis for swearing revenge.  Granted Chief's death might have pulled this out of children's territory, since Tod's mother is already killed at the outset, but this would have established the conflict in a more convincing manner.

Still, the film develops the relationship between Tod and Copper well, and we sense the sweet bond of friendship between them.  When you're young, the corruption of the world hasn't jaded you, and you don't yet understand prejudice.  For delivering those messages alone I applaud this Disney movie, even if I recognize its faults.  Oh yeah, it ends with an epic battle with a Grizzly Bear.

The Black Cauldron (1985)

For many, this film represents the absolute nadir of Disney animation.  It took 12 years to make, 5 of which involved the actual production.  Disney wanted to go to a really dark place with this one, but unfortunately a new face was running the show, Jeffrey Katzenberg, who hated the direction the story was heading and insisted that the animators pull back.  When he demanded the film be edited, the animators responded that this was impossible, so he did it himself.

The plot involves a young boy named Taran who dreams of becoming a great knight.  One day his magical pig Henwen has a premonition about the Black Cauldron, a device that can raise an unstoppable army of the dead.  The Horned King (John Hurt), an evil force ruling the land, wants this Cauldron for himself, so its up to Taran to keep Henwen away from the King for fear she might reveal its secret location.  Of course, he ballses it up.

Despite Katzenberg's best efforts, the film still earned a PG rating, a first for Disney animation.  You can feel the elements of a great film at work here, but unfortunately the whole thing feels rushed, and you arrive at the climax before you even get started.  The problem with a lot of fantasy stories is they need to time to build the world, and let you revel in it.  Black Cauldron would have benefitted from more time in the world, but alas Katzenberg had his way.

There's also the character of Gurgi, a love-him or hate-him creature who many would compare to Jar-Jar Binks.  Personally I enjoy Gurgi; he's a lighter version of Gollum, dishonest and selfish, until the end when he redeems himself (whereas Gollum doesn't).  There's a also a flighty princess and some old codger along for the ride, but again the film is so short it never makes do with them.

This is also the first Disney film since Sleeping Beauty (1959) to be filmed in widescreen; all the rest were animated in a full frame aspect ration and then matted to suit theater's exhibiting standards.  Its a look I sorely miss and benefits the film greatly, but it also explains the high production costs and time.  Its certainly not the worst Disney film around, but its a shell of what it could have been, and as a result the final product is a weird blend of dark material and comedy that doesn't quite work, and makes the movie forgettable.

Part 6 will cover:
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Oliver and Company (1988)
The Little Mermaid (1989)
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

If one thing is for certain, Zero Dark Thirty (2012) will be the most talked about film this winter, as it has already been lauded with accolades from several critics groups (currently appears as number 1 on most top ten lists), and will go on to garner several awards nods throughout the next two months.  It is also already the center of a lot of controversy surrounding its depiction of the CIA's methods in obtaining information from detainees, and a general attitude that is very pro-USA.

The film details one woman's near decade long hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and the lengths she goes to dig up any information that will lead her back to Bin Laden.  This woman is Maya, played by Jessica Chastain in her first big starring role, after fantastic supporting roles in last year's The Help and The Tree of Life.  We learn little about her, but we see her as a machine working non-stop to nail Bin Laden to the wall.  This includes ignoring her superior's orders to focus on where the next terrorist attack will take place to focus all her effort in her hunt.

Opening on a blank screen, September 11th is established by the 911 phone calls made by terrified Americans trapped in the tower, realizing they are facing their doom.  Next, its 2003, and Maya has just landed in Pakistan to begin her work on the search.  She witnesses a very brutal torture scene where detainee Ammar (Reda Kateb) is waterboarded, treated like a dog, and stuffed into a box smaller then a coffin.  Maya is visibly shaken by the experience, but when left alone briefly with Ammar, who tells her that his torturer Dan (Jason Clarke) is an animal, she simply responds he can end all this by being honest.

These first scenes are definitely the most controversial of the film.  For one, the 9/11 intro feels a tad exploitive, since the WTC attacks are an easy way to get any patriotic American riled up.  Then the torture scenes, which eventually yield crucial information about one of Bin Laden's couriers that drives Maya's hunt for the rest of the film.  Director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) never takes a solid stance either way on whether torture is good or bad, and leaves it up to the audience to react on their own.  Some will be appalled at what happens, others will support the action as a means to an end, and the lazy will criticize Bigelow for not taking a stance and telling us how to think.

In reading other reviews, I ran across a theory on the movie that I quite like and support.  Zero Dark Thirty is the story of America's revenge on Bin Laden; he organized the terrorist attacks, and we hunted him down.  Zero Dark Thirty plays out like a revenge film, and has America so desperate for retaliation and closure that we will go to any lengths to hunt down those responsible.  Its really no different then movies like Gladiator (2000), Kill Bill (2003-2004), or any number of films that involve heroes going to desperate lengths to exact their revenge on those that wronged them.

We are shown several other terrorist attacks that happened throughout the last decade, including the London bus bomb, the Marriott in Islamabad, and an attack on a CIA base that kills one of Maya's close friends and really propels her forward on her hunt.  Through this the film is able to maintain a state of suspense, as Bin Laden's continued freedom supposedly leads to all these other attacks.  The film also provides us with a literal representation of Hitchcock's definition of suspense, in which a bomb quite unexpectedly goes off near Maya.  Suspense is knowing the bomb is there, and that it will eventually go off.  Surprise is the bomb going off.  Bigelow plays out both versions of this theory in different scenes, and they work out fantastically.

Of course this all boils down to the final act, in which the final raid on Bin Laden's compound is meticulously restaged.  We watch as the soldiers systematically blow up doors, enter, and engage in firefights with the few terrorists living there.  Shot mostly in night vision, this is the scene everyone will remember, as we become active participants in the event.  The final killing of Bin Laden is not treated with loud trumpets (for one thing, the soldiers aren't sure if it is Bin Laden), and we never see his face, a wise choice on Bigelow's part.  When he is finally identified by Maya, she gets on her plane, relieved, but also lost.  For eight years she has been hunting this man, and now that he's caught, her life seems to have lost purpose.  She doesn't have any real friends or relationships, her whole life has been devoted to finding this one man.

All the actors do a fine job, and Chastain especially is superb.  She reminds one of Clarice Starling from Silence of the Lambs (1991), another headstrong woman trying to make it in a man's world.  She is fierce, tenacious, and unrelenting, and Chastain is the perfect actor for this role.  She has emerged as one of our most versatile performers today, and I look forward to many roles for her in the years to come.  The film itself is also a well crafted suspense thriller, a revenge tale for the ages.  It recounts a decade in our history, without reveling in politics.  We never glimpse Bush or Cheney, and Obama only surfaces in a Campaign interview to indicate where we are in the timeline.  Bigelow is a master at keeping her own politics at bay.

With all that being said, how did I actually feel about this film?  Is it really the best of the year?  I believe a film like this is, to a degree, critic proof (at least in the USA) because any major criticisms leveled against it could be seen as a criticism against America.  There almost seems to be an overwhelming amount of people declaring love for it because how can you talk ill of the people that were responsible for hunting down Bin Laden?  I, for one, do not consider it the best of the year, but that's also how you define the best.  For me, its a movie I want to revisit again immediately, and will enjoy a long shelf life in my DVD collection.  Zero Dark Thirty is expertly made in all aspects, but its not one I will find myself watching again anytime soon.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 4

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Four long years separates Sleeping Beauty from Lady and the Tramp, due once again to the use of CinemaScope's 2.55:1 ratio, allowing the artists to paint on a larger canvas.  This film has a very distinctive look from most other Disney films, and each background took seven to ten days to complete, versus the typical one day for other Disney films.  As a result, the backgrounds are rather lifeless, as only prominent characters are given the ability to move.  Its still one of the most striking looks a Disney film has ever attained.

This is another Disney film carried by the supporting characters, rather then the leads.  The story opens on the birth of Princess Aurora, and the curse the evil Maleficent places on her.  Jealous that she was not invited to the Princess' birthday, she declares that before the sun sets on her 16th birthday, the Princess will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and die.  The King sends his daughter into hiding with three fairies, who place a counter charm that will simply but Aurora into a deep sleep, only to be awakened by true love's kiss.

It's amazing how Disney romance made sense when I was younger.  Perhaps it bored me, so the faster the characters fell in love the happier I was.  Now, of course, its almost laughable how quickly people fall for each other.  Aurora meets her betrothed, Prince Phillip, though neither knows the other; and though she is apprehensive, it takes one song (Once Upon a Dream) to convince them they were in love.  If only it were that easy.

But if Aurora and Phillip don't provide much in the way of character, its made up by the three fairies (Merryweather being the best), and imposing force that is Maleficent.  True her gripe with Aurora is a weak reason, but then again there are plenty of people out there who would do the same.  It comes down to a fantastic final fight, as Maleficent transforms into a huge dragon.  And, of course, true love's kiss.

101 Dalmatians (1961)

101 Dalmatians is a watershed film in the Disney animation style; before you couldn't fault a single Disney film for its look, they were all wonderful to behold.  But production costs were too high, and so a new process was developed known as Xerography, a photocopying technique that gave the films a rough look.  To swap Sleeping Beauty for 101 Dalmatians feels like taking a few steps back from where animation had come.

101 is one of those films I watched a million times as a kid because those puppies were so darn cute.  The story opens with Pongo the dalmatian narrating the everyday droll life he leads, and how he hooks up his human pet Roger (see, they think of us as pets!) with a beautiful young lady named Anita.  Bonus for Pongo: she has a dalmatian named Perdita.  Both couples get married, and Perdita gives birth to fifteen puppies.  In one of Disney's darker moments, one of the puppies doesn't make it, though of course Roger uses massaging techniques to revive the little guy.

This is all threatened by Anita's extravagant employer, Cruella De Vil (possibly the best name for any Disney villain ever), who steals the puppies intent on skinning them all and making a Dalmatian fur coat.  Ethics aside, I imagine a Dalmatian fur coat would look horrible, but then again I've been told I have no sense of fashion so what do I know.

As far as Disney films go this one's fairly decent, once again featuring a myriad of supporting characters that help Pongo and Perdita on their quest to rescue their puppies (and the 84 others Cruella has somehow rounded up).  There's also the bumbling henchmen Jasper and Horace who provide a few chuckles.  The best scene is the climax, in which Cruella's vehicle turns into a hellmobile and her eyes blaze with the rage of 1,000 suns.

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

There are two ways people know the Arthur mythology, neither from reading any of the books.  One is Monty Python's classic telling of Arthur's quest for the Holy Grail.  The second is this film, which tells Arthur's origins, his schooling with Merlin, and his eventual pulling of the sword from the stone.  A third would probably be the musical Camelot.

Arthur is a squire, referred to as Wart, until one day Merlin comes along and begins schooling him in the ways of the world.  This film is one of the first, in animation anyways, to make winking references to the future.  Merlin has time traveled and seen all the latest inventions, and mentions several different technologies that leaves Wart confused but will have the audience laughing, if they haven't seen Shrek (2001) a million times yet.

There's not much forward momentum to the plot, but what is here is fairly enjoyable.  Merlin transforms Wart into a fish, a squirrel, and a bird, and each leads to dire misadventures.  The highlight is a duel between Merlin and Madam Mim, as they transform into several different creatures to try and one up each other.  The Merlin wins is quite ingenious actually.

Merlin's sidekick is the owl Archimedes, voiced by Junius Matthews who also does Rabbit in Winnie the Pooh.  He's a nice little character, dropping several dour remarks about the situation, and always keeping a pessimistic outlook, though he helps when he can.  In the end, Sword in the Stone might not be much, but whats there is pretty damn entertaining and provides youngsters with a neat entry point into the Arthur mythology.

The Jungle Book (1967)

You know what's been missing from the past several Disney films?  Great music.  Sure most of the past couple films had songs, but none of them are ones I pull up regularly and sing along too.  Jungle Book, on the other hand, has several great songs, the highlights of which include Bare Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You.  Strong songwriting wouldn't pervade Disney until the Renaissance era, but of all the past Disney films, this one has the most memorable songs.

It's also a significant film because its the last Walt oversaw before his death in December 1966.  While the quality of Disney films had begun to wane at the start of WWII, here the films really start to dip in quality, with a few real duds on the horizon.  Jungle Book is still overall a good film and one I will continue to revisit through my life, featuring several wonderful characters including George Sanders' wonderfully deep voice as Shere Khan.  Also notable are the Vultures, modeled to look like the Beatles because they were originally going to do the voices, until John Lennon vetoed the idea.

Making his first of three appearances in Disney is Phil Harris, providing the voice of Baloo.  He brings a swinging, easy going edge to the scene, and Disney would use him in their next to films to bring a little life to the scene.  The journey of little Mowgli from the Jungle to the village is always fun, with one of Disney's better endings as he is charmed by a girl away from his friends.  Oh Disney, sometimes you know life too well.

More importantly, this film saved Disney animation.  Because Walt had died, the future of the animation studio was called into question, and had this film been a financial failure, it is likely Disney Studio Animation would have closed indefinitely.  Luckily, the film has a huge box office hit, and resuscitated the studio, but it would be 22 years before Disney animation truly returned to form.

The AristoCats (1970)

Jungle Book saved Disney Animation so we could get...this.  It's a highly unremarkable film about a cat and her kittens who are going to inherit their wealthy owner's entire estate.  This makes her Butler extremely jealous, and so he sets out to drown the cats, since the lady will bequeath her estate to him instead, if the cats aren't there.  My what a dastardly plan.

If the plot is slightly ridiculous, it is saved by several good characters and some good scenes.  The highlight of the film involves two dogs, Napoleon and Lafayette.  (Pat Buttram voices Napoleon, and if the name sounds familiar, it's because he resurfaces in several coming Disney films.)  Napoleon and Lafayette chase the Butler for no other reason then thats what they do, and inadvertently foil his dastardly plans.

Phil Harris is back as Thomas O'Malley Cat, providing the same swagger he did for Baloo.  Eva Gabor voices Duchess, the lead Cat, and she'll be back in a future prominent Disney role.  They go on several misadventures and have a run-in with some other alley cats, who sing the films only semi-memorable song, Everybody Wants to Be a Cat.  This is all finished off with another great climax in which the Butler is shipped far, far from Paris.  Disney is pretty good at climaxes.

Disney does produce some good films through the 70s and 80s, but none have that timeless classic feel to them (save one thats coming up).  Disney's animation department was heading towards their lowest point, as they operated on tight budgets and the pressure to deliver successes that would keep the company afloat.  Its definitely not smooth sailing, as we'll see next time.

Part 5 will cover:
Robin Hood (1973)
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
The Rescuers (1977)
The Fox and the Hound (1981)
The Black Cauldron (1985)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Full spoilers for everything Hobbit-related below.

We seem to have entered a new age of cinema, and its not necessarily for the better.  Instead of figuring out how to adapt books for feature length movies by reducing content, we are now at a time when books are being chopped up into multiple parts to "give the story the most attention" when really its at the service of maximizing profits.  I was a big supporter of Harry Potter doing this with its seventh book; one movie would have felt slight and rushed, but two gave ample time for the whole story to be told.  Granted, Deathly Hallows Part 1 is a much slower pic then Part 2, where the final battle comes to a head, but there was enough content to justify the split.

Twilight followed suit with its final two parts, and Hunger Games will do the same with its final book, though if you've read Mockingjay you'll understand what a punishing time we're all in for, as that book is slow, boring, and pretty awful compared to the other, more exciting Hunger Games novels.  But I digress.

Peter Jackson now has enough clout that he can demand what he wants from the studios because his Middle-Earth films deliver the returns.  Hell, when he made the highly debated decision to make Hobbit three movies instead of two, I bet the studios wet themselves with joy since he upped their potential profits that much more, and only had to stretch the budget a bit to accomodate extra shooting, post-production, and marketing for a third film.

So how does Part 1, An Unexpected Journey, hold up?  Well, for Middle Earth enthusiasts, this is everything they could have hoped for and more.  Jackson dives right back into Middle Earth and adds lengthy scenes explaining the backstory of Smaug's takeover of the Lonely Mountain, and fleshing out Thorin's (Richard Armitage) character more thoroughly then the book does.

The film is framed by an old Bilbo (Ian Holm) committing to paper his various travels, addressing them directly to Frodo (Elijah Wood), who is shoehorned in to establish why he's sitting under that tree at the opening of Fellowship of the Ring.  We finally launch into The Hobbit proper with Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo being greeted by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, returning from his LOTR days).  Gandalf chooses Bilbo to join his company of dwarves, led by Thorin, on a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug, and Bilbo initially refuses.  But soon he's off with the 13 dwarves on an epic adventure filled with many perilous dangers.

The Hobbit is a short book, running barely over 300 pages, whereas The Fellowship of the Ring is nearly 400.  So why does The Hobbit get the trilogy treatment when the 1,000 page LOTR saga was condensed into three movies instead of six or nine?  Well, Jackson adds a lot of new material found in The Silmarillion and the Appendices to Return of the King, which explain where Gandalf runs off to all those times he goes missing.  With all this material, Jackson is aiming to complement his LOTR films with the most comprehensive set of films he could make.  So does it work?

Yes and no.  While the embellishments help to paint the world of Middle Earth, all the added stuff grinds the forward momentum of the narrative to a halt.  There's so much set-up and exposition going on in the first half of the film that you're head is literally spinning from the vast amount of plot being thrown your way.  There's the addition of Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard more in tune to nature's creatures, to the point where he comes across as a Disney Princess.  Some have been going so far as to call the character the Jar-Jar Binks of the series, and while I found the character vexing, I wouldn't go that far.  He does serve a purpose (to introduce the Necromancer that we'll get more of in the coming films), though its a slight one.

What's really missing from this film, though, is an epic sense of purpose to the quest.  The Hobbit is about Bilbo coming to terms with his adventuresome spirit, and proving that Hobbits and indeed all creatures can be more cunning then originally conceived.  The quest to reclaim the treasure doesn't carry the same weight as the quest to destroy Sauron and his minions.  Try as Jackson might, the whole thing doesn't ring with the same epic sweep the original trilogy seemed to manage so effortlessly.  Even now I can go back to those films and become engulfed in the story.

The film's best scenes come when the gang is swept into the Goblin's lair and Bilbo is separated from the group and his infamous run-in with Gollum (Andy Serkis).  This character is classic now, and to see him again filled me with excitement.  The game of riddles is wonderfully rendered, and is the only section of this film I can find no fault in.  Its perfect, and worth sitting through the rest of the film.  The mo-cap has never been better.  The dwarves also do battle with the Goblins with Gandalf, which serves as the film's one truly exciting action scene.

On top of all this is another story involving an orc who has a thorn up his ass about Thorin and is determined to kill him at all costs.  This character is fairly boring, and while it offers an explanation for all the roaming orcs, and sets up an emotional payoff between Bilbo and Thorin, the character itself is little more then a lazy plot device to give this film some semblance of a three-act structure.  I guess its good to have an enemy to fight against, but this one inspires no sense of fear or dread like the Urukhai managed to do.

Much has also been made by Jackson's controversial decision to shoot in 48 fps, doubling the frame rate that has been standard for nearly 120 years.  Many have complained that the higher frame rate gives the film a daytime soap opera aesthetic, and makes the sets look fake and CGI worse.  I cannot weigh in on this debate, having seen the film displayed in good ol' 2D 24 fps.  In certain sweeping wide shots the characters seemed to be moving at a remarkable speed that didn't match their Close-ups, like those badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy.  But overall the film looked fine, though the term film can't really apply because this was shot on the Red EPIC.  If I do see the HFR 3D for some reason, I'll add a footnote.

For purists, this film is heaven.  For the rest of us, this is an exercise in self-indulgent gratification, as we realize its going to be at least another year and two or so hours before we get to meet Smaug (here only seen flashing by).  The Prologue to LOTR effectively establishes the menace that is Sauron, but Smaug's prologue does little service to him.  I understand what Jackson is trying to achieve: the sense of an evil force returning is given a little notice here.  But this isn't Sauron's story, this is Bilbo's.  I've barely talked about the title character this whole time, and when you think about it, Bilbo is relegated to the background through most of the middle until the Gollum scene and his pivotal character shift at the end.  Delicious teasers, hints, and name dropping would have been more satisfying then all the padding given to this movie.  Jackson tries to give this small little story about a company of dwarves and a Hobbit deeper significance to Middle Earth at large, but sadly he falls well short of the mark.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

David O. Russell's latest feature, Silver Linings Playbook, takes all the rules of Hollywood's conventional romance and then shows us all how its done.  It tackles a sticky subject, mental illness, so directly and boldly that the product is a sometimes all-to-real, hard to watch film where we watch Bradley Cooper have multiple meltdowns and nearly destroy all his relationships.

Really the revelation of this picture is Cooper himself, who proves that he can be more then the pretty bad boy we've become accustomed to from the two Hangover films (with a third coming soon).  On the surface he appears to be stable, but you watch with wide eyes as the layers are peeled back quickly to reveal a bipolar man obsessed with getting his wife back after she cheated on him with a colleague.

Jennifer Lawrence is Cooper's co-star as a mysterious woman with problems of her own.  Her husband, a cop, has recently died, and the movie shows just how off-the-wall these characters are when Lawrence and Cooper first meet.  Pressured by his friend to not ask how her husband died, Cooper introduces himself and then immediately springs the question.  This draws Lawrence to Cooper, and she soon sets out to cure him in her own twisted way.

Rounding out the cast is Robert DeNiro as Cooper's father, an avid Eagles fan who is banned from the stadium for starting too many fights.  He is one of those guys who believes that certain events in his life effect that outcome of a sports game, down to the way his controllers are facing.  Jacki Weaver is unrecognizable as Cooper's mother, coming off her last role as the crazy mafia mother in Animal Kingdom (2010).  And Chris Tucker, after years out of work, fits perfectly into a role as one of Cooper's mental patient friends.  Boardwalk Empire fans will also recognize Steve Buscemi's brother Eli here as Cooper's.

O. Russell specializes in family dramas and exhibiting just how crazy we all are around each other.  The Fighter (2010), his previous work, also showcased an East Coast family that was destroyed by drugs, and a man being controlled by his mother and brother.  Drugs aren't a factor here, but Cooper's character's instability brings several tense moments to a lot of scenes as you don't know how far he might go.  One of his trigger's is a Stevie Wonder song that played at his wedding, and whenever an iPod and music were present, I kept anticipating that song coming on.

Also consistent between O. Russell's two films is the strong but offbeat female lead.  Both are played by actresses not normally known for being so blatantly sexualized (Amy Adams in the former and Lawrence here) but they both deliver fantastic performances and, with the screenplay, make us believe they really are these people.  It's also probably no coincidence that both movies feature the female lead standing up to the male lead's parents.

Inexplicably this all culminates in a competition where everything is at stake, though I won't reveal what, how or why.  O. Russell's command of our emotions is so sure that we are on the edge of our seats anyway, and its craft like that I have to admire.  Silver Linings Playbook isn't a great movie, but its a damn good one, and it shows us that you can play by the rules and still deliver a damn fine product.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 3

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

The last of Disney's package films is also probably the best, showcasing two stories that oddly work well together, translating classic American tales into Disney fiction.  The first, detailing the exploits of Mr. Toad, is a fun adventure in which Mr. Toad is a menace behind whatever vehicle he is operating.  This lands him in huge legal trouble with the townspeople, but soon Toad's friends Mole, Rat and Badger are out to prove that Toad was set-up.

Disney's take on Sleepy Hollow is also surprisingly dark, adhering to the major beats of the original tale.  In fact, its most notable because Ichabod himself comes across as somewhat of a jerk, seeking the hand of Katrina von Tassel and upsetting Brom Bones.  While Bones reminds one of Gaston, you actually kind of feel sorry for the guy as Ichabod upsets him at every turn.

Where the movie really shines, though, is in the chilling ending where the headless horsemen comes a-calling.  True, Disney doesn't establish the threat into the moments right before Ichabod rides home with a song, but the fact that Ichabod doesn't survive the Disney version turns this rendition into a memorable ending that stayed with me all throughout my childhood.  This is certainly the best version of the tale, definitely better then Tim Buton's take 50 years later.

Cinderella (1950)

After eight years Disney finally returned full feature animated stories with Cinderella, a tale everyone is familiar with, and maybe remembers too fondly.  It's not a bad picture, and contains some wonderful characters including the Wicked Stepmother, her cat Lucifer, and the mice who are the supporting players.  But it continues to suffer from the Disney syndrome of bland leads, including a Prince Charming that somehow makes less of an impact then the Snow White's Prince.

There are also some decent songs, including the Work Song, Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo and A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes.  And the mice Gus and Jacques provide loving support, including the tense finale where they attempt to carry a huge key up an enormous flight of steps so that Cinderella can try on the slipper.

You all know the story, but even at 74 minutes the film feels placid.  Nothing much happens for the duration, and there is a lot of filler in there to pad it out to length.  Still, you can't deny the impact its  had as a classic and one of the more well-remembered Disney films.

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

A box office failure for Disney, Alice in Wonderland holds up as a strange, abstract animated retelling of Lewis Carroll's seminal work.  Combining both books, we follow young Alice (Kathryn Beaumont) as she follows the White Rabbit (Bill Thompson) down the Rabbit Hole and into Wonderland, where she meets a garden variety of crazy characters.  Of course it all ends with the convenient "it's all a dream" technique, but much of what precedes is dazzling.

One thing you notice when watching multiple Disney films in a row are the recurring voice actors.  I never noticed that Smee and the White Rabbit sounded the same, or that Sterling Holloway's myriad of characters all came from the same voice (they include Mr. Stork from Dumbo (1941), Cheshire Cat, Winnie the Pooh, Kaa the Snake, and Roquefort from The Aristocats (1970)).  As a child, these voices completely disappear into the characters they are playing, but as an adult, you suddenly realize you're hearing the same voice actor in a different role.

Alice in Wonderland found second life and a cult following, become the number one requested 16 mm rental for university and private screenings.  It's a shame this film didn't connect with audiences in 1951, but maybe this film was too ahead of its time then.  Now, it is a model for abstract, visual storytelling.  And we can all forget Tim Burton's drab sequel.

Peter Pan (1953)

I am so familiar with the story of Peter Pan that it feels almost pointless to write anything about it.  Yes, we all know its the tale of a boy who refuses to grow up, and the wonderful adventures he takes Wendy Darling and her brothers on.  Captain Hook and Smee are great villains, the Crocodile and his ticking clock make for one hilarious character.

One major difference between the Peter Pan musicals (and book, I assume) and this film is that Wendy, Michael and John all know who Peter Pan is.  Wendy's stories are of Peter's exploits agains Captain Hook, and Peter himself listens with quiet zeal.  In the original story, Wendy merely tells great stories, and Peter is a just a boy who loves listening to them.  Makes Disney's Peter a bit pompous, actually.

One thorn in the Peter Pan story, and one that is front and center here, is the portrayal of the Native Americans, or Indians, in their most gloriously stereotypical fashion.  Its where all youngsters learn "How" as a Native American greeting, and where many of those stereotypes will become embedded.  Possibly the best and worst thing about Peter Pan is "What Makes the Red Man Red?" which is sung in honor of the Lost Boys and Indians joining up.  It does contain some fantastic lyrics though:

When did he first say, "Ugh!"
When did he first say, "Ugh!"
In the Injun book it say
When the first brave married squaw
He gave out with a big ugh
When he saw his Mother-in-Law

Captain Hook and Smee are realized as fully threatening and hilarious villains.  Most children are terrified of Captain Hook, but as one ages, his hijinks inspire more laughter.  He still carries an edge of menace that is essential to the character, especially when he tries to bomb Peter instead of poisoning him.

With its own slew of memorable songs, Disney's version of Peter Pan works well, though its racist tendencies can make one a little uncomfortable.  It comes with the territory, though, as thats embedded in the original book and subsequent plays and musicals.  It's a fantasy world where these archetypes do exist.

Lady and the Tramp (1955)

This is without a doubt one of the most beautiful Disney films ever made, Disney's first use of CinemaScope Widescreen.  I don't know why, but the 2.55:1 aspect ratio, or similar ones, look the most cinematic and the most epic.  And while this is definitely is not the most epic Disney film, it allows the animators to fill the screen with lush backgrounds and tiny details.

The story itself is pretty simple.  A husband and wife get a cocker spaniel, and treat the dog like their own child, until they have their own child and the dog is ignored for the new family member.  When the man and woman go on a trip, they leave the dog, Lady, in the charge of their Aunt Sarah, who could care less for Lady and locks her up outside.  Lady meets a streetwise scoundrel named Tramp, and a love flourishes between them which eventually leads to one of the great Disney scenes, where a plate of spaghetti and Bella Notte fill the night.

Once again an ethnic stereotype emerges in the form of the Siamese Cats, who have a strange song about being Siamese, or literally from Siam (now Thailand).  I don't know exactly who it offends, but its weird enough to ponder its inclusion in the film.  It doesn't help that the cats act as villains.

Revisiting all these old Disney films has demonstrated that some hold up better then others, but they are all entertaining because with adult eyes you see things you never saw before, understand others in a new light, and receive a huge nostalgia kick from the rest.

Part 4 will cover:
Sleeping Beauty (1959)
101 Dalmatians (1961)
The Sword in the Stone (1963)
The Jungle Book (1967)
The Aristocats (1970)

Skyfall (2012)

50 years.  It's almost astounding that Bond has made it this long, when Sean Connery first uttered those immortal words, "Bond.  James Bond."  That the series has now survived the bankruptcy of MGM is a testament to its lasting power.  It's a part of our world culture now, as Bond stands as a representation of our ideal selves.  Suave, sophisticated, Bond is the man we'd all like to be.

Until 1995's GoldenEye, Bond had never really been held to the fire regarding his ruthless killing streak.  Bond has always killed in cold blood, but now we've arrived at a Bond who feels the consequences of his actions.  He doesn't always come out of a firefight unscathed, and the deaths of those around him effect him even more.

Casino Royale (2006) laid the groundwork in what was a refreshing reboot of the Bond franchise, bringing a meaner, leaner Bond into the mix.  But that was squandered in the problematic Quantum of Solace (2008) which forgot Bond's true roots, and instead imitated the Bourne films.  After MGM declared bankruptcy, there was the threat that Bond might not return.

But now he's back, and Skyfall, the 23rd entry in the long running franchise, finally delivers on the promise established six years ago.  Helmed by Sam Mendes, who proved he had a knack for action with 2002's Road to Perdition, this Bond delivers with several action sequences and one of the series best villains, who is less interested in global domination (which we've seen so many times) but instead carrying out a personal vendetta against MI6.  It brings the fight to Bond in a way we've never seen in the series before, and M, played by the always astounding Judi Dench, is given the largest role we've seen for the character.  She's essentially a co-star, not a supporting one.

The film, to my chagrin, does not open with the classic gun barrel, something Quantum of Solace surely should have done.  Not to spoil to much but my worries that we might never see famous white dots again was put to rest at the end.  What we do get are spectacular locations, including an opening chase scene that takes bond from a Jeep to motorcycle to the roof a train.  It ranks up there with the best of them, and I was exhilarated during the entire event.  It ends with a poor judgment call on M's part that leads to Bonds apparent death, but since we haven't seen the opening titles we know Bond will somehow survive.

The result is a Bond who, after 3 months away, returns when MI6 is bombed, and must return to the field of duty despite his less then prepared state.  Many franchises have tried this before, most notably Pierce Brosnan's last foray as Bond Die Another Day (2002), which saw Bond held and tortured for a year.  The hit TV show 24 also saw its hero Jack Bauer tortured for 18 months before returning the the fold.  In both instances, though, they wave off the torture and perform some physically amazing stunts.  And while Bond does do some spectacular things, there is a sense that he is wounded, that he's not always up the task.  His poor aim spells death for one unfortunate character, where he might have saved her.

Even the final fight, which takes place in most unexpected location, is completely different from every Bond finale we've seen before.  The stakes are higher, and the world is less threatened by the ensuing battle and its outcome.  Bond fights for himself and other key players, and not for the safety of the world at large.  It still manages to deliver on several fronts, as a satisfying action sequence and pulse-pounding thrill ride.

All of this is photographed by Roger Deakins, the Coen Bros.' go-to cinematographer, who brings a new look to Bond that fits the series well,  Several fights are staged in darkened areas, as silhouettes against bright backdrops.  The fact that this man has never won an Oscar is astonishing.

Bond is back.  And hopefully the good will established in this film won't be squandered in the 24th entry.  I should also mention the spectacular cast surrounding it all, including Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem as the villain, Ben Wishaw as the new Q, and Albert Finney.

The Book of Mormon

How to review the Book of Mormon?  No doubt it has become a huge Broadway success and will likely run for many, many years, as it consistently sells out show after show after show.  And now the show is touring the country, and is setting up shop in Chicago and London, which is the true measure of how long it will last.

I could sit here and talk about the show's plot at length, dissect its religious bashing and caricature of the Mormon beliefs.  But what I really want to discuss is the humor.  For Broadway, this has got to be the most crass, the most lowbrow, the most hilarious ever seen.  I've never been to a show where the audience has been laughing for almost the entire duration of the show (except in those few, rare, tender moments) and the humor has been so vile.

Its actually a miracle this show has done so well.  If you've seen South Park or the movie version, or Team America or any other work produced by Trey Parker and Matt Stone (save BASEketball, which they had no hand in making) you know they pull no punches and will go wherever they please.  Book of Mormon's main jokes revolve around female circumcision, baby rape, and maggots in scrotums.  It's base.  And it's brilliant.

The show gets away with so much because it surrounds all this humor in upbeat and memorable musical numbers, mostly staged by the Mormons.  Their sunny optimism and outlook keep the show up, and keep the spirit from becoming so mean, which can be a fault with Parker and Stone's other ventures.  True there is the wonderful song Hasa Diga Eebowai, which I won't translate for fear of spoiling the punchline, but most of the numbers are more clever in their crudeness.

I make it no secret I am a huge admirer of Parker and Stone; their South Park is one of the best television shows ever made, a biting and base satire of the world.  One episode can be a simple, crude story of the boys getting into crazy shenanigans, and the next they can be tearing down celebrities and pointing out the farce that is the American Dream.  Book of Mormon is more pointed in its satire, but one should realize that it doesn't completely denounce religion altogether.  (spoilers) During the show, one Mormon fashions a new version of the holy text to apply to the Africans they are trying to convert, by addressing the issues of AIDs, rape, and circumcision, which the Book doesn't directly address.  The Africans (Ugandans, more accurately) don't believe the stories but take them as metaphors, stating, "You really think Joseph Smith fucked a frog?" (end spoilers)

Its amazing where we've come in the spectrum of Broadway musicals.  I'm sure there are other, cruder musicals out there, but this one succeeded.  This one took home 9 Tony awards, is selling out everywhere, and is as crude as shows come.  Parker and Stone, along with Avenue Q composer Robert Lopez, have made a miracle of a show.  Its vile, its base, its crude...and its the funniest show you'll ever see.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 2

I've fallen behind in reviews and jumped ahead in the film repertoire, so I'm reaching back to a few months ago to review these films.

Disney's run of spectacular films was sadly ended by the U.S.'s entry into WWII, causing most of the animation staff to be drafted up into the war effort.  Those ineligible stayed, and so what follows in the Disney stable are several films cobbled together from ideas that were forming in the past.  Essentially they are anthology films, not unlike Fantasia (1940) though none reach the genius level of that film.

The first two can be paired together, Saludos Amigos (1942) and The Three Caballeros (1944).  Both films take a particular interest in South American culture, with Amigos jumping around to various locations and animating stories based on the environment.  The shorts are framed around home movie footage of Disney animators flying and visiting their various destinations, which makes it almost a pseudo-documentary.  It's also the shortest Disney feature to date, at 42 minutes, and some will probably complain about its official status, but there you go.

The shorts themselves range from decent to bleh, with the highlight being a cute little airplane named Pedro who makes a treacherous mail delivery past a demon mountain of some sort.  Goofy shows up as a Gaucho, educating children on the Latino version of the cowboy; Donald Duck has adventures in Lake Titicaca; and the animators invent a new character, Jose Carioca, that green parrot who teaches Donald about the night life of Rio de Janeiro.  He's not the most charismatic character, in spite of the animator's best efforts, and there is a reason he is unknown outside of die-hard Disney fan circles.

Caballeros is a longer iteration of Amigos, and is more of the same.  It runs at 71 minutes, but even that runtime sags and begins to stretch the limitations of one's patience.  Donald receives three gifts from friends down south which proceed to educate him on Central and South America.  The best short involves a penguin fed up by the Arctic, and his attempts to make it north to more tropical and friendly environments.  It's narrated by Sterling Holloway, and if you don't recognize that name, just wait.  He's going to be popping up a lot more in the reviews to come.  Jose Carioca returns for more Samba, and there is a long, strange live action-animation blend where Donald and Carioca interact with a samba dancer and her crew.  The film is really a mess, meanders on too long, and leaves very little impact.  It has its moments, and Donald is always fun to see, but there comes a point in the viewing where you get bored and want it to end already.

And now we enter the run of "package" films.  These films are full of ideas that the studio was working on, and were either too long to be considered shorts but too short to be considered features.  Make Mine Music (1946) is a collective of several Disney shorts, though the one most will remember is Peter & the Wolf.  It uses the famous score written by Sergei Prokofiev, which features different instruments representing the different players in the scenario.  Sterling Holloway once again narrates, but I find his voice over distracting and unnecessary.  The Disney animators convey the story so perfectly through the emotions and expressions of the characters, and I feel like Disney didn't trust the children to understand what was going on without everything being spelled out.

The best short is the Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met, featuring the operatic Nelson Eddy who supplies every voice and vocal range of the short.  The Whale at the Met is always a notoriously depressing short, as Willy the Whale attracts attention from all over, his only dream to sing at the Metropolitan in New York.  Someone reasons that the whale must have swallowed an opera singer, and sets out to kill the whale.  It's all hilariously tragic, and one of Disney's better shorts.

Make Mine Music is also notorious for the omitted short Martins vs. the Coys, which is too bad because its also pretty good.  Removed because of "comic gunplay," this short (which you can find on YouTube) features two rival families who start shooting at each other, until only one guy and one girl from opposing sides is left.  They naturally fall in love, while their ancestors watch from heaven.  Its curious that Disney has decided this short to be inappropriate, yet are forced to stick with their more insensitive portrayals of ethnicities throughout their filmography.  When you watch it, is it really that different from Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny?

Fun & Fancy Free (1947) features two shorts and a very odd live-action middle portion.  The first is Bongo, about a circus bear who escapes to the wild and finds true love, though he fails to understand that bears smack each other to show they love each other (one of Disney's more hilarious songs).  Many will remember the second short, Mickey and the Beanstalk, of course a retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk.  But randomly, in the middle, Jiminy Cricket shows up and goes over to some ventriloquist's house, where a little girl is being entertained by the various cheeky puppets.  Its such an off-beat and almost creepy section that ruins the charm of the two shorts.  Basically, Bongo and Beanstalk are best viewed on their own.

And finally there is Melody Time (1948), again a big compilation of shorts, and the best one.  Featured are Johnny Appleseed, which really needs no explanation.  He's just such a determined little fella' with his pot hat and appleseeds.  The other is Pecos Bill, sung by Roy Rogers and the Sons of the Pioneer, a story about a boy raised by wolves in the old west, and who grows up to become the manliest man there is.  His horse gets jealous when he falls for a girl, however, and zany situations ensue.  Other shorts fill in the gaps, including Little Toot, about a tugboat that fucks everyone's shit up, and the return of Jose Carioca for one more attempt at being popular.  His Samba once again does not impress.

Of course, the majority of the films here were released Post-War, as Disney and his team were preparing to release their first full narrative story in 8 years, Cinderella (1950).  For anyone interested in what the Silly Symphonies were like, the majority of these shorts give you a pretty solid foundation.  Sure none of them leave a lasting impact, and upon reflection these are the films that will probably fall at the bottom of most lists just based on unrecognizability.  But there is still a charm to these tales, and in one way or another, you probably know most of them already.

Prometheus (2012)

This review is spoilerific

It's time to call out Damon Lindelof.  The man who is half responsible for ruining the TV show Lost (if you think the show sucks, revisit the first two seasons; they hold up, despite what you know of the coming seasons) here nearly ruins the entire Alien franchise with an origin story that is very poorly handled.

I guess equal blame should be shouldered onto director Ridley Scott, who makes his return to sci-fi after a 30 year absence (poor Blade Runner must have scared him away from the genre).  Scott's visual style is fully intact, and he produces a film that's very pretty to look at.

But why I am so disappointed with this film?  I intentionally avoided all marketing for this film so I could see it with fresh eyes.  The plot was closely guarded, and I decided to respect Scott's wishes by not seeking out any info on this film before I saw it.  I was hoping to be surprised, swept away in a new, worthy addition to the Alien universe.

The film opens strongly, with a strange humanoid creature standing perched atop a cliff.  A spaceship takes off, and it drinks a strange black goo that kills it.  The idea presented that, whatever planet this is (earth, one assumes) this creature just gave life, and our origins come from it.

Fast forward to the end of the 21st century, as a crew sets out to that damnable moon where so much trouble occurred in Alien and Aliens.  There is an extensive crew who aren't briefed on their mission until they are awoken from a two-year cybersleep.  Me, I want to know what I'm signing up for before I dedicate 4 years of my life.

The main characters are Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), one of the scientists who still has faith for some reason; David (Michael Fassbender, always supremely awesome) the android in this film; Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), the representative for the Weyland corporation; and Janek (Idris Elba), the captain of the ship, Prometheus.  There's also other people.

Anyways, they somehow interpret the same pattern of planets in a bunch of ancient drawings to mean the creators of life came from these planets.  So with this sound theory, Weyland throws a trillion dollars at them to explore the farthest reaches of the universe.

So far the film had me intrigued.  But once the crew arrives at the moon (LV whatever), I had the sinking feeling we were in for something familiar.  And the movie quickly turns into a retread of Alien, with the scientists exploring the surface, exploring inside, and eventually crazy creatures attack and all hell breaks loose.

And this is why the film disappoints me.  It sets out with grand ambitions about the nature of human existence, and while I never expected the film to answer one of life's greatest mysteries, I was hoping for a more in depth conversation with our creators.  In the climax the characters finally come face-to-face with one of these creators, the humanoid creature from the opening (they are referred to as Engineers).  The creature is awoken, and without much hesitation, continues with what was an apparent plot to destroy the human race.

This is such a run of the mill, predictable, boring course of events.  Of course the movie instead might have featured an equally horrible scene where the Engineer tells everyone how horrible the human race has become, and that our extermination is essential because we have forgotten how to love or blah blah blah, and then proceeded with killing us.  If you can't come up with a good reason, I guess its better left unsaid.

But the film isn't all bad.  The planet is beautifully realized, and there are some genuinely tense scenes, including a nail biting cesarian section that takes the cake as probably the best sequence in the whole film.  Ridley Scott can still deliver tension, and I admire the man for that.  It's just unfortunate the movie doesn't add up to much.  It's fine to let your audience fill in the blanks, but when the audience has to fill in all the blanks, you didn't do your job.

But that brings me back to Damon Lindelof.  He is one half of the remaining show runner team for Lost, and one can make the argument that too many questions were posed in that show to get a satisfying answer too.  But Lindelof, I have news for you: there are questions that can't be answered, and then there's shitty writing.  Don't introduce a substance like the black goo if you're not going to tell us what it is, because that's about as lazy as the giant plug at the center of the island.  And I'm not letting Ridley off the hook either.  Mr. Scott, you have lost your touch.  Next time, fire your screenwriters and have a story that makes fucking sense.

The Wonderful World of Disney: Part 1 (Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, Bambi)

Rather then try and review each Disney film individually, I've decided to lump them together in five movie chunks (four in this case, since I gave Snow White an individual review).  It gives me the opportunity to compare and contrast the various films, and analyze their place in the Disney oeuvre.

Walt had some ups and downs with the next two films, Pinocchio (1940) and Fantasia (1940); while they are arguably the two greatest films Disney has ever made, they were not big financial successes for the fledgling company, especially Fantasia which was envisioned as a roadshow piece and never really picked up.

But my what fantastic pieces of cinema these two films are.  Pinocchio of course set the Disney standard so high that I feel its seldom been met by the company itself.  Of course it introduces Jiminy Cricket, who would become a sort of mascot for Disney until Tinker Bell popped up over a decade later; and it featured what is now Disney's theme song: When You Wish Upon a Star.  It makes you believe, if only for a moment, in magic again, that anything and everything is possible if you just believe.

But what I think really makes Pinocchio stand out is that none of its main characters are perfect.  Pinocchio is always getting into trouble, despite his best intentions, being led astray by Honest John and Gideon and multiple turns.  And Jiminy, assigned to be Pinocchio's conscience, is terrible at his job; he's late on the first day, and whenever Pinocchio is led astray Jiminy tries meekly to get him back, and then decides Pinocchio can go screw himself.  And not everyone receives a happy ending; the boys who turn into donkeys on Pleasure Island are never heard from again, their fates probably horrifying.  Its details like that which keep this movie from aging.

Fantasia by all stretches is the most adult Disney film.  It runs over two hours (the longest Disney film) and most kids are bored once the film gets past the Dinosaurs.  I myself only truly first saw this film about 8 years ago, and immediately recognized it as a classic.  This is Walt's most experimental film, opening with Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, first utilizing the shadows of the musicians, then moving into an animated interpretation of what you might see if you closed your eyes during the concert.

Fantasia is the film that ostensibly invented the music video, although it is much more artful here then the candy colored marketing strategy music videos would become.  Only two pieces have actual, cohesive through lines, the most famous being the Sorcerer's Apprentice which truly made Mickey Mouse a star, and The Rite of Spring, which tells the story of the big bang, evolution, and dinosaurs.  The other pieces, which include ballerina hippos, greek mythology, and the devil holding a celebration on Halloween, all follow various characters but have no definable plots, and I love that.  Instead of trying to force each song to follow a plot like Fantasia 2000 (1999) would, the numbers here are allowed to follow their natural, if illogical courses.

And though I mentioned youngsters probably couldn't make it through this film, I still think they could get a lot of enjoyment out of it.  There are still great scenes here, full of sadness and truth at times, and joy and happiness at others.  Of course everyone remembers Mickey Mouse and those pesky brooms, but its the other, less remembered sequences that really make this film stand out.  If there's one major flaw with the whole thing, its Deems Taylor's unnecessary explanations before each piece.  His intro at the beginning is a nice way of laying out the program, but then he keeps popping up and wasting my time telling me everything I'm about to see.  It almost ruins the experience.

Alas, Fantasia nearly bankrupted Disney, so for his next features, the company decided to make the tightest, most focused film they possibly could.  And the result is another classic, Dumbo (1941) the story of a baby elephant with oversized ears.  The film runs barely over an hour and is a fantastic lesson in economical storytelling.  Opening with storks delivering babies to the circus animals (the sanitary way of explaining to your child where they came from), the film introduces us to Jumbo, who seems to get passed over despite her wish for a child (one could make inappropriate miscarriage jokes here).

Eventually the stork catches up, but the baby elephant is born with oversized ears that makes him the laughing stock of the all the hussies that share Jumbo's train car.  Despite her wish to name him Jumbo, Jr. (her only line, if I remember correctly), the other ladies rather cruelly name him Dumbo.  Of course his oversized ears lead to his eventual ability to fly, which shows those ladies what for.  And along the way he makes a friend in Timothy J. Mouse, a lesser Jiminy Cricket.

Dumbo features two great scenes, one being his heart wrenching reunion with his mother in her cage (imprisoned after beating a boy who mocks Dumbo) while she sings Baby Mine, and the other being the famous Pink Elephants on Parade sequence.  The latter is a fantastic experimental short that probably goes on too long, but I'm not complaining.  There is some great imagery in that sequence, mainly those amorphous Pink Elephants.

Of course now review of Dumbo is complete without touching on those pesky crows which have somewhat tarnished the film's image.  These characters are accused of being racist portrayals, but I honestly think thats just people overhyping the situation.  They teach Dumbo how to fly, after all, and they have their own cool style.  But that aside, Dumbo is a fantastic little example on how to tell a good story economically.  And Dumbo saved Disney from bankruptcy.

And now Bambi (1942), which you can't talk about unless you mention the poor fawn's mother dying.  It probably ranks as one of cinema's most shocking and memorable moments because unless you've seen it before or know whats happening, its fairly shocking.  Bambi's mother is taken from him violently, and the reason to kids is unclear.  If you wonder where PETA came from, blame Disney for humanizing animals so much.

Bambi's much lighter in the plot territory, and served more as an experiment for the Disney artists in studying animal movement and replicating it in animation.  There is of course Thumper, another worthy addition to the Disney character stable, and Flower, who I guess has some gender identity issues.  And Bambi, who curiously investigates the world around him.

Bambi is one of Disney's only coming-of-age stories, as Bambi goes from a young fawn to a grown up buck, experiencing life's challenges along the way.  Disney is all for selling the American Dream, but this film does not shy away from life's darker aspects, as Bambi must constantly evade the offscreen presence of man.  Bambi learns about the world, falls in love, and must fight to preserve that love.  Disney of course has no problems killing parents, but The Lion King (1994) kills off Mufasa through the wickedness of Scar, and we take comfort in knowing Simba will get his revenge (it is interesting to note that Disney's coming-of-age stories feature prominent parental deaths).  But when Bambi's mother dies, there is no way of avenging her; what happened happened, and there's nothing Bambi can do to bring her back or take on the menacing presence.  I think that's a much darker and braver move on Disney's part, and what makes Bambi stand out.

Bambi was released right after the U.S. had entered into WWII, and Walt would lose most of his animation staff to the war effort.  It would be 8 years before Cinderella (1950) was released, officially returning Disney to the realm of feature stories.  But in these first five films, Disney made five very unique films: Snow White launched an empire, and is a musical, magical film; Pinocchio delved into more interesting and developed characters, and gave real consequences to their actions; Fantasia reveled in experimenting with how far you could take animation; Dumbo recalls to Disney's Silly Symphonies without sacrificing gravitas; and Bambi conveys life through a little deer.  These are all fantastic films, and while Disney would go on to make great ones, they would never match this run.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

I'm going to start this review right now by saying there is really no way to talk about this film without spoiling it.  So what I'll say to the curious is go see it.  The movie starts out as a standard horror flick with five teens heading into the woods alone, and evolves in ways you would never have anticipated.  There, now go see it.  Even non-horror fans will get a kick out of it.  So, spoilers ahead.  You've been warned.

Ok, so now into the Cabin in the Woods, the new (relative term, really) film co-written and produced by Joss Whedon (who's Avengers just smashed the weekend box office with $200 million) and co-written and directed by Drew Goddard (who penned Cloverfield).  I say relatively new because this film was supposed to be released two years ago, but MGM's bankruptcy forced the movie to be shelved until now. But finally, its out.

The movie starts out as two parallel stories.  One involves the five teenagers, which include the whore (Anna Hutchinson), the Virgin (Kristen Connolly), the stoner (Fran Kanz), the jock (Chris Hemsworth), and the sweet slightly nerdy guy (Jesse Williams), heading out to someone's cousin's cabin in the woods for a weekend away from school.  On the way they stop at a threatening gas station, where a creepy redneck is quite unfriendly.  You've in all likelihood seen this movie before.

The second involves Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford as two white-collar workers whose business seems at first to be ambiguous, but soon you realize they are more connected to the teenagers then previously believed.  In fact, they are leading this teenagers right into the very horror film we're expecting to see.

Its this twist that provides the film with a new, fun aspect.  Sure, the characters are murdered one by one, but watching Jenkins and Whitford banter while this is all going on, placing bets on which monster they will unleash and the like, is what keeps this movie afloat through its middle half.  Normally this would be enough for a horror film, but Whedon and Goddard take it one step further and actually have two remaining characters unearth this conspiracy.  And then what happens is almost too hard to describe.

The movie is not without its flaws.  There is some genuine tension in the horror film that gets interrupted by our puppet masters; there are convenient plot devices used to get an easy laugh (a gas makes one character change his mind from a stick together plan to a split up plan); and in the end, there's a big, red purge button that unleashes all the horror monsters you've imagined onto the people running the show.

Early on, the five characters descend into the basement of the Cabin and discover a whole series of crazy trinkets, which when handled a certain way, will unleash a particular monster.  It is unfortunate that, in an homage to Evil Dead, a latin phrase is read from a book unleashing a Zombie Red Neck Family.  Apparently a Merman is on the menu, and I would have preferred the film maybe not taking us on a retread of Friday the 13th.

At the same time, the patient ones are rewarded by a cornucopia of monsters being unleashed in the end, and Whedon and Goddard set out to make every horror film ever made.  Its a mass frenzy of beautiful chaos that you don't quite believe while you're seeing.

I should also mention the reason this is all happening: an angry god demands the suffering and sacrifice of five young people every year, or else it will rise up and end humanity.  And so the movie poses a serious ethical question: what happens to these kids is horrible, but at the same time, its what has to happen for humanity to be saved.

The movie also touches lightly on our carnal need for blood.  We are, at our core, a violent species that used to send Gladiators into the arena to die for our amusement.  Now technology can satisfy that urge in less destructive ways, whether it be through video games or horror movies.  But what inherent pleasure is there in seeing young people gutted and murdered horribly?  I admit to Evil Dead being my favorite of this type of film, but whats the point?  How can we be so entertained by something so awful?

Cabin in the Woods is an enormously refreshing take on horror, a blend of Truman Show and Scream taken about as far as you can go.  Yes, the movie isn't perfect.  But I can forgive the imperfections of a film that kept me guessing as to how much the limits would be pushed.  About as far as you can imagine.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

It all began with a mouse.

And from that mouse sprung forth an empire that now owns several theme parks around the world, several television stations, and production subsidiaries.  The far reaching grip of Disney cannot be underestimated: everyone at some point in their childhood fell in love with a Disney film, and it is because those films are so identifiable to us now that we can get huge nostalgia kick out of a trip to Disneyland, where we see all our favorite characters from all our favorite films.

Mickey Mouse may be the mascot, but the first feature Disney film, the first feature animated film, is already 75 years old.  And that is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  Seen today, the film has aged wonderfully well.  Oh sure, Snow White and Prince Charming are just about the most bland characters you could imagine, but its still a delight to behold.

Of course the plot is simple: Snow White is decreed fairest in the land by The Evil Queen's Magic Mirror (who, really, is kind of a dick; he knows what The Queen will do) and so the Queen orders Snow White's execution.  The Huntsman tasked with the job feels pity for the girl, so he sends her away (in Universal's upcoming release, he stays and trains her).  After running through the woods, she stumbles upon the Dwarfs hut, and goes about cleaning for them.

Yadda yadda yadda, you know the rest.  It's actually amazing how little plot there is in the film.  It runs 83 minutes, but by the tenth minute Snow White is already running through the woods, and you wonder how the film will stretch the rest out.  Disney fills the movie with delightful numbers and characters that pad out the film and, though the plot has little forward momentum, keeps the mood upbeat.

In fact, the movement of the plot fits the film.  The focus shifts to the Seven Dwarfs realizing an intruder is in her house, and a long scene plays out where they slowly try and confront her, sending Dopey into the front line.  Then Snow White makes them wash-up.  Then they have a celebration.  These are great, fun scenes and before you know it, the Queen has turned into the old Hag and the Dwarfs chase her off a cliff.

Its almost hard to imagine that this film was seen by children and adults alike who both loved it equally for different reasons.  Of course Disney's greatest contribution is probably also the thing that has kept animation behind: its now seen as children's entertainment, and has to work the extra mile to prove itself to adults.  Most, if not all, animated films produced in the US are aimed at children, because the more adult animated films do not get seen.  Its an unfortunate stereotype because at its most powerful, animation can move you just as much as any live action film (see Grave of the Fireflies, a Japanese film that deals with dark subject matter).

However, Snow White's contribution cannot be understated; its success lead Disney to produce a variety of other films and create a line-up of characters and moments so memorable that it becomes timeless.  Dumbo flying through the air; Cinderella putting on the glass slipper; The Bear Necessities of life; Cruella De Vil; Lady and the Tramp sharing spaghetti; Mickey Mouse commanding the waves.  All this began with what is arguable the most famous kiss of all time.

The Wonderful World of Disney

I recently made another trip to the Disneyland Resort with my mother and have now been inspired to undertake a new mission, something to keep my blog alive: I want to revisit (or see for the first time) all of the Official Disney Animated Feature Films. Of course, not all are good and some like kind of painful. Disney's first features are spectacular, and then meander before some more classics from the 50s and 60s. While its disputable, their work from the Aristocats through Oliver & Company is probably their longest dry spell. I wouldn't call all the films bad, but none of them are really all that great either.

Another reason to do this is because it is officially Snow White's 75th Anniversary, the original feature film that started it all (actually it started with a mouse). I've tried in the past to do these review series, and I know my commitment may wane when I get to Saludos Amigos and the Three Caballeros. But damnit I'll keep going.

But the real reason is because Disneyland conjures memories of all these films through their various extravagant spectacle shows, whether it be World of Color, Fantasmic, or the Remember...Dreams Come True Fireworks show. Anyone who has had a history with Disney films will get bitten by nostalgia and be moved by some of the most iconic moments in film history. I want to revisit all the films I haven't seen in years, and see the ones I never got to.

A note: Pixar films unfortunately don't qualify as they are Pixar films. I am only viewing and reviewing films that were produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation. Yes there are many more animated films and then there are the live action/animation blends (Pete's Dragon, Mary Poppins, etc.). But I'm only focusing on what are recognized as their official animated films.

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

2. Pinocchio (1940)

3. Fantasia (1940)

4. Dumbo (1941)

5. Bambi (1942)

6. Saludos Amigos (1942)

7. The Three Caballeros (1944)

8. Make Mine Music (1946)

9. Fun and Fancy Free (1947)

10. Melody Time (1948)

11. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

12. Cinderella (1950)

13. Alice in Wonderland (1951)

14. Peter Pan (1953)

15. Lady and the Tramp (1955)

16. Sleeping Beauty (1959)

17. 101 Dalmatians (1961)

18. The Sword in the Stone (1963)

19. The Jungle Book (1967)

20. The Aristocats (1970)

21. Robin Hood (1973)

22. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)

23. The Rescuers (1977)

24. The Fox and the Hound (1981)

25. The Black Cauldron (1985)

26. The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

27. Oliver & Company (1988)

28. The Little Mermaid (1989)

29. The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

30. Beauty and the Beast (1991)

31. Aladdin (1992)

32. The Lion King (1994)

33. Pocahontas (1995)

34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

35. Hercules (1997)

36. Mulan (1998)

37. Tarzan (1999)

38. Fantasia 2000 (1999)

39. Dinosaur (2000)

40. The Emperor's New Groove (2000)

41. Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

42. Lilo & Stitch (2002)

43. Treasure Planet (2002)

44. Brother Bear (2003)

45. Home on the Range (2004)

46. Chicken Little (2005)

47. Meet the Robinsons (2007)

48. Bolt (2008)

49. The Princess and the Frog (2009)

50. Tangled (2010)

51. Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Upcoming:

52. Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

53. Frozen (2013)

21 Jump Street (2012)

I'm operating under a new theory now: I used to meticulously study each and every film that was about to come out. I would watch all the new trailers released on Apple Trailers, I would rewatch them the day the films came out to remind myself what was out there, and I would look up the Meta Critic and Rotten Tomatoes reviews to find out if any of the films were worth going to. Believe me, if I film I was highly anticipating got universally bad reviews (like The Golden Compass nearly 5 years ago), I changed my mind about seeing it.

I'll still look to the critics to tell me what is good and bad, and dodge those films that get reviled. That will never change. But what I'm trying to do is go into films with as little knowledge about them as possible. To not watch trailers or read reviews (which is where Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic come in handy, since you don't need to read reviews). I'll never avoid trailers fully: I still love seeing them before a film in the theater, and there are some great trailers out there that spoil little and are almost works of art in their own right (see The Social Network trailer). But having no expectations, going into a film knowing nothing, can radically alter how you enjoy something.

For instance, I didn't know anything about 21 Jump Street. Not that it was a TV show in the late 80s that gave Johnny Depp his career start, nor what any of the jokes are. Ignorance is bliss, they say, and with this film thats especially true. Which is why I'm going to sum it up for you now. If you haven't see the film, I'll tell you this: go see it, then come back and read my review. I'm not spoiling anything, but gosh would be hypocritical of me to not tell you up front what you want to know and instead make you learn about the film.

Jonah Hill (slimmed down and looking like Slim Shady in the prologue) and Channing Tatum play opposite ends of the High School spectrum, and you can probably figure out where they fit. Fast forward seven years and they are best pals, united in Police Academy because Hill had the brains and Tatum had the brawns. After they flub their first arrest by forgetting to recite the Miranda Rights (you know, the one that starts out with You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to be an attorney), they are reassigned to what their captain aptly describes as, "A revised program from the 80s, which is what the people in charge do when they run out of ideas." If you find that line funny, you're in for the rest of the movie.

Their base of operations is at 21 Jump Street, where Ice Cube plays a foul-mouthed, angry police Captain who cannot believe how dumb his charges are. The purpose of the program? To send young-looking officers undercover to High Schools to bust drug rings ("You some Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus-looking motherfuckers," Ice Cube helpfully explains). The movie then takes the opportunity to lampoon Hollywood High School films, where all the stars are usually in their late 20s.

I could go on and on about the drug that is infecting the High School, how Tatum and Hill wonderfully play off of each other and end up in role reversals (Tatum suddenly the nerd, Hill in the cool crowd). But what it really comes down to is did I laugh? Was this movie funny? And the answer is a resounding yes. The movie is wall to wall with jokes that don't always make sense, which is explained by the presence of co-writer Michael Bacall (who wrote Scott Pilgrim, also wall-to-wall with jokes). These movies can seem a bit exhausting, and while 21 Jump Street could have lost five or ten minutes it still breezes by, only being stilted by boring action chases (which still provide some laughs).

The film also looks at High School cliques with an almost fresh perspective. So many High School films see it as a division of Cheerleaders and Jocks and Nerds. But its so much more complex then that. There are people who cross the lines, who shade in the areas. In this film, the cool kids care about the environment and don't bully people. Hell, one of them happens to be gay, but its not made into an issue. This perplexes Tatum and Hill, who came from the High School Hollywood feeds us, and though the nerds are still seen as little more then sad virgins, at least the film made an effort to shake up one department.

So see this film already! Sure the story may be slight, and the jokes may not always make sense (Korean Jesus), but it keeps laughing, and somehow makes you care for the characters. Its sad that something like this is rare for Hollywood to put out.

A Thousand Words (2012)

I thought I was being unfair to A Thousand Words, the new Eddie Murphy comedy that's not so new because it was filmed back in 2008 and supposed to be released in 2009. I went to a secret screening of a film that we didn't know the title of. It could be anything! I was lead to believe by the online survey I filled out to attend the film that it would be The Dictator (what else am I to think when I'm asked if I saw and enjoyed either Borat or Bruno). Well, I got an exclusive look at the new Dictator trailer, which as of this writing is still not released (you learn more about the film's story). But the movie I ended up seeing was A Thousand Words, and I had the privilege of being a member of the first audience to see it.

How exciting for me. I had no idea what this film was about, so despite my disappointment that all I got from the Dictator was a new trailer (a funny one, I might add), I was interested in how I would react to this film. After all, I had not seen a trailer, I had no idea who was in it, and I had no idea what it was about. It was one of those rare moments we as movie goers don't get anymore, especially those of us heavily focused on whats coming out next. I was seeing the film with no bias at all (apart from the fact that Eddie Murphy was in it, who unfortunately inspires dread nowadays).

The films premise is a fun one: Eddie Murphy plays literary agent Jack McCall, a fast talking, lying piece of work that will do anything to get what he wants. In an early scene, he dodges a Starbucks coffee line by convincing everyone that his wife was in labor, and having twins (thereby earning him a free cup of joe). But when he grabs the rights to an exclusive book written by a hot new self-help guru, he somehow becomes cursed by a Bodhi tree which springs up in his backyard and sheds leaves at his every word. They determine, somehow, that if the tree loses its leaves, he will die.

This film is by no means completely awful, but its not really all that good either. There are funny moments involving Murphy desperately pantomiming a coffee order or using various speaking toys around his office to close a deal with a publisher. And Clark Duke, as his assistant, adds the funniest bits to the movie (as he often does). The film also somehow manages to star Allison Janney as his boss and Ruby Dee as his mother.

But the film falls apart when the main character realizes that he needs to better himself, and the film gets rather somber in the later half. Few directors can handle a tonal shift like this, and Brian Robbins (whose other credits include Norbit and Meet Dave) is not up to snuff. The film reminded me of Groundhog Day in a way, as Bill Murray transitions from condescending asshole to an all around talented and awesome guy. Yet Groundhog Day somehow handled its dramatic scenes (Murray's multiple suicides) in a way that doesn't feel heavy-handed and schmaltzy.

Kerry Washington is also underserved as Murphy's wife, who just wants to move from his Bachelor Pad atop the Hollywood Hills to a nice home that's child safe (they have a son). Apparently his unwillingness to do this puts a real thorn in her side, and when Murphy stops talking, she takes this as him being mad at her. Of course she decides to maybe make it up to him by putting out, which leads to an incredibly miscalculated scene where she invites Murphy to a hotel room and says, "All I need is for you to talk dirty to me." Well really, movie, of course this scene would exist when he can't talk.

But what really infuriated me about the whole film was that the climax rested on an internal conflict Murphy has with his Dad which is established with no less then one line of dialogue in the first ten minutes of the movie. Yes, his Alzheimer's mother keeps thinking he is his dad, but I took this as more of a bad joke then something that was really hurting the character. This also leads to some very odd sequences where Murphy chases himself as a kid through golden wheat fields.

So maybe the movie is pretty bad. The intentions are good, but the execution is designed to try and ring a tear from your eye in the most manipulative feel good way possible. Clearly if I felt more sympathy for the characters IN the film I might have cared. But as it is, this film is a poorly made mess. There's a reason its been shelved for nearly four years, and the saddest part is it was only now just released to take advantage of Eddie Murphy's recent Oscar hosting stint. Because that happened.