It's rather difficult to assess these Hobbit movies; the common complaint is that Peter Jackson could have made one, spectacular, tight three-hour movie of the book and it would have been done. But instead Jackson and the team at Warner Bros. have been forcing this little book into a huge event to equal the original LOTR saga, and as such these films don't feel as effortlessly epic as the previous ones did.
To be sure, I enjoyed Desolation of Smaug a bit more then An Unexpected Journey, if only because all the set-up is out of the way and we can get to the best parts of the book, which include the terrifying journey through Mirkwood and the confrontation of Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) in the Lonely Mountain. But the second installment commits the same treason as the first, by shoving Legolas (Orlando Bloom) in our face when he was never part of the original proceedings.
The movie opens with a brief, odd prologue in the city of Bree (where if you look fast you'll spot ol' carrot chompin' Peter Jackson himself) where Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Thorin (Richard Armitage) have a meeting that basically results in Gandalf convincing Thorin to set out on this quest. We resume our journey with Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the company of dwarves as they tangle with the skin-changer Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), ferocious arachnids, wood elves, the people of Lake Town, and ultimately the dragon.
Though this films is only 8 minutes shorter then An Unexpected Journey it somehow feels a lot quicker, for the most part. There are a few major complaints I have with the film, but the barrel-river-ride is as exhilarating and as goofy as one could have hoped for and the confrontation with Smaug is one of the best scenes in cinema this year.
Mr. Cumberbatch lends both his voice and body to motion-capturing the dragon Smaug, and the result is a villain so dastardly and evil that, no matter your complaints about everything else, you'll be riveted to the spot watching him slither around the enormous treasure room of Erebor. Its one of those moments people call pure cinema, and just like Bilbo's confrontation with another mocap villain, Gollum (Andy Serkis) in the previous installment, this a scene that alone is worth the price of admission (unless you see it in IMAX 3D, in which case the price may be a bit too much).
There are also some other embellishments that work, for the most part. The part of Bard (Luke Evans) is greatly expanded to better pay off his actions in the third movie, rather then the book's method which is to introduce him right before he does one of the most important things in the story. Though it may be a little ridiculous that this man would meet with the dwarves and shepherd them to their destination, its a quibble I overlook.
Gandalf also comes face-to-face with the Necromancer (also Benedict Cumberbatch) in another of the few additional subplots I do enjoy. Gandalf does go wandering off a lot in the original book, and its nice to get some insight into what he was up to. This is one of those embellishments that enhances the story, rather then feels leaden and extraneous. Perhaps I don't mind this as much because I know its something that happens in the book, albeit off page, and perhaps if I had no familiarity with the novel I would find this stuff too much.
What I do find too much, unfortunately, is the character Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). She is a character nowhere to be found in the Middle Earth universe, yet Jackson has fabricated her to get a female into the story. I'm fine with this; she kicks some serious ass and is pretty badass, showing up Legolas. But she is also the unfortunate cause of a love triangle between Legolas, herself, and the dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner). I may sound 10-years-old for saying this, but there is no room for a love story in this epic, at least the one Mr. Jackson and his screenwriting team have realized. Tauriel rescues Kili on more then one occasion and he falls for her, and she in turn for him after they have a weird, "cute" conversation while he is her prisoner.
Her subplot culminates in the most ridiculous image of the film, and possibly all of Jackson's Middle Earth films: as Kili lays dying from a wound he sustained (another deviation from the novel), she brings the special weed to heal him, and Kili gazes up and sees her surrounded in a magnificent glow. I wanted to boo at the screen.
The biggest complaint I have though, is that the movie called The Hobbit is not about the hobbit. Bilbo has his moment at the beginning with the spiders and rescuing the dwarves from the elves. But once the barrel ride starts, Bilbo is again regaled to nothing more then popping up every now and then to remind us he's there, until the end when he has his big face-off with Smaug.
Well wait a fucking second...why do we see this film told from Thorin, Legolas, Gandalf, and Bard's perspectives and get barely any Bilbo? HE'S THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTER! I believed Frodo's journey to destroy the ring, I believed Aragorn's struggle with accepting his place as the King of Gondor, but I have barely seen any development of Bilbo's strength and courage. Its there as the book tells it, but Bilbo is so caught up in the spectacle that we never see him develop at all. He's a flat, terribly written character who simply shows up every now and then to service the plot. Martin Freeman does all that he can in the role, but Mr. Jackson has lost sight of what this story is truly about in his epic quest to stroke fanboy boners and deliver the ultimate companion to his epic LOTR films. I said it last year and I'll say it again, THIS IS NOT LOTR! The world is not at stake (although that threat is being established); a dwarf just wants his home back (and even he's a greedy bastard as we'll see in the forthcoming final film) and this is their struggle to do so. But just because you have Bilbo doing these actions that prove he has grown in some way doesn't mean we believe it because we never saw Bilbo grow! This was a huge issue in the first film, which saw Bilbo as the focus for the first hour and then relegated him to a smaller role until Gollum time. I guess he gained his courage at the end of Part 1, but that leaves no growth for him here! I never once doubted Bilbo's abilities until the scene with Smaug, and I should have been held in more suspense before that about what Bilbo would do.
Jackson also ends the film in the stupidest cliffhanger place possible, interrupting a third act because otherwise there wouldn't be enough movie to service the third installment. I'm very tempted to show up next year to the theater, buy my ticket, sit down, and watch Smaug get taken down, which should supposedly happen in the first scenes of the film. Then I'm done.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Man of Steel (2013)
When you look at Man of Steel you can see a lot of Christopher Nolan influence: the design of the poster (listing off the multitude of stars), the dark atmosphere, even the main title is not shown until the very end as an exclamation mark, much like Nolan's other recent entries. But the main difference is, obviously, Nolan only helped create the story and produced the film, which are still key roles in the movie making business. Zack Snyder, director of 300 (2007), Watchmen (2009), and Sucker Punch (2011), takes the helm and adds his own unique touches, including obnoxious camera work and a loud, bombastic, relentless 45-minute final showdown.
Man of Steel tells us once again the story of Superman's (Henry Cavill) rise to fame, where he comes from and what makes him who he is. Superman (1978) was the first major superhero movie, and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the story of Krypton's destruction, Superman's adoption by earthling foster parents, his times struggling in Smallville, and his eventual move to Metropolis and the Daily Planet. This is all well known, so the major question is what can this reboot bring that we don't already know?
Nothing, really, but what it does well, at least early on, is paint Superman's childhood in a much darker tone then we've seen before. Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) teaches Superman, dubbed Clark Kent, to hide his powers and not use them because he doesn't think the world is ready to know there is alien life out there. Clark has to deal with his developing powers, which include X-Ray vision and super hearing, and figure out how to control and focus his attention so he can master this powers. It's a unique take rather then Clark's usual outcast status that he is assigned.
Moreover, his journey to the fortress of solitude is a little less convenient then in past Supermans; usually he just walks north and happens upon the exact location his father Jor-El hid it (it's a fortress in previous versions, here it's a spaceship). His soul-searching wanderer recalls Bruce Wayne's similar exodus from Gotham in Batman Begins, though with Nolan and David S. Goyer in charge of the story (as they were on Begins) this does not come as much of a surprise.
Lois Lane is also wonderfully utilized, proving for once how she earned her pulitzer. Rather then conveniently being in the right place at the right time, she hunts down her leads and is able to track down Superman on her own tenacity. Usually in this story Lois isn't introduced until Clark Kent arrives at the Daily Planet, making this story development quite the shake-up to the established Superman mythology.
There's a lot to like here, but unfortunately Zack Snyder is in charge, which means its far from great. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Synder adds his own unique voice to the mix and if anything, I'm happy Mr. Nolan did not direct this; it would have been too similar to his Batman trilogy and, more importantly, too self important and full of itself.
But Mr. Snyder doesn't handle subtlety very well (a church scene frames him with a stained glass Jesus), and pitches the action at such a high pace early on that it has nowhere to go. Combined with the recent Star Trek Into Darkness I feel like our action directors have forgotten what pacing is and how to escalate an action scene in intensity. The audience needs a breather, but once the World Engine is in place everything becomes so frantic that we nary have a moment to breath.
To the movie's credit we do finally get to see what a true Superman fight looks like: pitching him against General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his army means we get plenty of super punches and millions of dollars in property damages. Hell, the amount of human casualty that occurs at the end ranks so high that it's no wonder our nation is wary of Superman at the end, and a high ranking General asks him if he can be trusted. These are cynical times he live in, and I suppose its only natural that one of the few remaining pillars of Americana be brought down with it. Many buildings are destroyed in the climax, and Superman contributes more the destruction then he does to stopping it. That still doesn't stop him from saving Lois Lane whenever she falls out of a plane.
Overall, it feels like they played their best cards first, and now there's nothing left for the sequel. How do you top the near destruction of Metropolis? Batman saved Gotham and then faced his greatest foe in the sequel. Lex Luthor is still around, yet to be introduced, but I don't know how great a villain he ultimately is. I guess we still have Kryptonite to deal with. No one fully figured that out this time around.
I guess I just really wanted to love this movie. I wanted something groundbreaking and revelatory to be done, to see Superman in a new way, and while those elements are present, I realized there's something else missing: it's not much fun. Even Nolan's Batman Begins is fun in certain elements. It doesn't bother me that a few buildings come down. It's that more buildings fall down. And more. And more. It feels like it never stops. And eventually it becomes a little depressing, and the spectacle is lost.
Man of Steel tells us once again the story of Superman's (Henry Cavill) rise to fame, where he comes from and what makes him who he is. Superman (1978) was the first major superhero movie, and I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know the story of Krypton's destruction, Superman's adoption by earthling foster parents, his times struggling in Smallville, and his eventual move to Metropolis and the Daily Planet. This is all well known, so the major question is what can this reboot bring that we don't already know?
Nothing, really, but what it does well, at least early on, is paint Superman's childhood in a much darker tone then we've seen before. Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) teaches Superman, dubbed Clark Kent, to hide his powers and not use them because he doesn't think the world is ready to know there is alien life out there. Clark has to deal with his developing powers, which include X-Ray vision and super hearing, and figure out how to control and focus his attention so he can master this powers. It's a unique take rather then Clark's usual outcast status that he is assigned.
Moreover, his journey to the fortress of solitude is a little less convenient then in past Supermans; usually he just walks north and happens upon the exact location his father Jor-El hid it (it's a fortress in previous versions, here it's a spaceship). His soul-searching wanderer recalls Bruce Wayne's similar exodus from Gotham in Batman Begins, though with Nolan and David S. Goyer in charge of the story (as they were on Begins) this does not come as much of a surprise.
Lois Lane is also wonderfully utilized, proving for once how she earned her pulitzer. Rather then conveniently being in the right place at the right time, she hunts down her leads and is able to track down Superman on her own tenacity. Usually in this story Lois isn't introduced until Clark Kent arrives at the Daily Planet, making this story development quite the shake-up to the established Superman mythology.
There's a lot to like here, but unfortunately Zack Snyder is in charge, which means its far from great. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Synder adds his own unique voice to the mix and if anything, I'm happy Mr. Nolan did not direct this; it would have been too similar to his Batman trilogy and, more importantly, too self important and full of itself.
But Mr. Snyder doesn't handle subtlety very well (a church scene frames him with a stained glass Jesus), and pitches the action at such a high pace early on that it has nowhere to go. Combined with the recent Star Trek Into Darkness I feel like our action directors have forgotten what pacing is and how to escalate an action scene in intensity. The audience needs a breather, but once the World Engine is in place everything becomes so frantic that we nary have a moment to breath.
To the movie's credit we do finally get to see what a true Superman fight looks like: pitching him against General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his army means we get plenty of super punches and millions of dollars in property damages. Hell, the amount of human casualty that occurs at the end ranks so high that it's no wonder our nation is wary of Superman at the end, and a high ranking General asks him if he can be trusted. These are cynical times he live in, and I suppose its only natural that one of the few remaining pillars of Americana be brought down with it. Many buildings are destroyed in the climax, and Superman contributes more the destruction then he does to stopping it. That still doesn't stop him from saving Lois Lane whenever she falls out of a plane.
Overall, it feels like they played their best cards first, and now there's nothing left for the sequel. How do you top the near destruction of Metropolis? Batman saved Gotham and then faced his greatest foe in the sequel. Lex Luthor is still around, yet to be introduced, but I don't know how great a villain he ultimately is. I guess we still have Kryptonite to deal with. No one fully figured that out this time around.
I guess I just really wanted to love this movie. I wanted something groundbreaking and revelatory to be done, to see Superman in a new way, and while those elements are present, I realized there's something else missing: it's not much fun. Even Nolan's Batman Begins is fun in certain elements. It doesn't bother me that a few buildings come down. It's that more buildings fall down. And more. And more. It feels like it never stops. And eventually it becomes a little depressing, and the spectacle is lost.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Arrested Development: Season 4 (2013)
We're living in an age when gone-too-soon TV shows are starting to get a second go around at life. The most notable examples are Family Guy and Futurama, both shows that have been resuscitated, though the latter is being taken off life support. Arrested Development is a third example, and I guess it's no coincidence that all three shows aired on Fox, the network that also killed the beloved Firefly. I don't think any other network has cancelled so many loved shows.
One thing TV fans are learning, however, is that just because a show is returning, doesn't mean it's going to be as good as it was the first time around. Many, myself included, will agree that pre-cancelled Family Guy is a lot better then post-cancelled Family Guy, though the show just finished its 12th season and, like The Simpsons, is showing no sign of retiring. Futurama, on the other hand, is in its final season having recently been cancelled by its new home, Comedy Central. And the show's post-cancelled seasons are not the same caliber, though there are some gems.
So obviously this does not bode well for Arrested Development, which was given a second life by Netflix, where the first three seasons of the show now live. To be fair, Mitch Hurwitz, creator of the show, decided to do something new with the material, partly because he couldn't get all the actors together at the same time (some are just to busy now), and partly because he experiments with a new way of storytelling.
I won't get into too many plot points, partly because there are far too many to go over, and partly because I kind of already forgot what happened during this season. Each character gets at least one episode, and the majority get two (Lucille, Buster, and Maeby are the only characters to get one episode, and theirs are some of the better ones). There's an overarching web of plots that tie together various events at the made up festival of Cinco de Cuatro, and a couple of other locales. Each episode provides you with a piece of the larger puzzle, and it slowly all fits together to tell one super, 8 1/2 hour long narrative. And while this is a genius idea in theory, in execution it doesn't work.
One thing TV fans are learning, however, is that just because a show is returning, doesn't mean it's going to be as good as it was the first time around. Many, myself included, will agree that pre-cancelled Family Guy is a lot better then post-cancelled Family Guy, though the show just finished its 12th season and, like The Simpsons, is showing no sign of retiring. Futurama, on the other hand, is in its final season having recently been cancelled by its new home, Comedy Central. And the show's post-cancelled seasons are not the same caliber, though there are some gems.
So obviously this does not bode well for Arrested Development, which was given a second life by Netflix, where the first three seasons of the show now live. To be fair, Mitch Hurwitz, creator of the show, decided to do something new with the material, partly because he couldn't get all the actors together at the same time (some are just to busy now), and partly because he experiments with a new way of storytelling.
I won't get into too many plot points, partly because there are far too many to go over, and partly because I kind of already forgot what happened during this season. Each character gets at least one episode, and the majority get two (Lucille, Buster, and Maeby are the only characters to get one episode, and theirs are some of the better ones). There's an overarching web of plots that tie together various events at the made up festival of Cinco de Cuatro, and a couple of other locales. Each episode provides you with a piece of the larger puzzle, and it slowly all fits together to tell one super, 8 1/2 hour long narrative. And while this is a genius idea in theory, in execution it doesn't work.
Each character is so densely plotted that the show over relies on Ron Howard's narration to explain everything that's going on. And even that doesn't help because you tend to miss a sentence or two and spend the rest of the episode perplexed. For instance, matriarch Lucille (Jessica Walter) has her trial held at a bar, which was explained so quickly in the 1st or 2nd episode that my friend turned to me 10 episodes in when, again, we returned to said trial and asked, "Why are they doing this at a restaurant again?"
Now, the original seasons tend toward this habit as well; in the Pilot episode, Michael (Jason Bateman) delivers one line of dialogue to Tobias (David Cross) which prompts him to believe the boat party is pirate themed. The first time you'll probably miss that line or forget it, since you don't know the implication the first time you hear it, but the second time you know whats coming and it makes it funnier! So obviously Mitch Hurwitz is trying this out again.
But here's the problem: much of what happens this season isn't funny. That might be a heresy to some of you, but its sadly true. The original seasons of Arrested Development were funny on their own right, and only got funnier when you re-watched the episodes. I've watched the first three seasons maybe five times now, and it never gets old.
Now take this newest season: save a couple of episodes, most of what happens is either not funny or boring, and a lot of it is miscalculated. Granted this is what happens when you separate out characters, and Lindsay (Portia de Rossi) & Tobias are especially boring when filling out their own 33 minute slot. Some of these characters were never well developed and were perfectly serviceable as punchlines. But watching Lindsay date a guy with Face Blindness, or Tobias try and stage a Fantastic Four musical with recovering drug addicts wears thin when its the only plot going on.
GOB (Will Arnett) and Buster (Tony Hale) get the best episodes, as GOB becomes part of a music entourage (spoofing the HBO show) and entering into another competition with his fiercest rival Tony Wonder (Ben Stiller), as Buster receives an update to his missing hand. Maybe these characters are inherently more interesting, as GOB usually revels in a seedy underworld and Buster suffers from years of arrested development. Lindsay is simply defined by her shallowness, and Tobias by his ignorance, and neither are character traits that befit more then a couple of minutes per episode. Tobias was best showing up randomly to say something outrageous like, "I just blue myself!" Here, his Tobiasisms get overwhelming ("Ninja, please!")
I think this season could have worked with a different approach. Now of course they couldn't get all the actors together, but was it really so hard to tell us part of each character's story and move the pieces along like a Game of Thrones season? Episode by episode would check in with at least three characters and move their stories along, and the season could still serve as a puzzle box. It's nice to have a B and even a C storyline, but the structure only allows for A stories, and not all of them hold up on their own. Lindsay's Face Blindness dude would have been more forgiving in smaller doses, but having to put up with him for fifteen minutes was too much of an endurance.
The biggest sin this puzzle box season commits is the lack of conclusion. After all that buildup and all that commitment, the ending should have delivered and instead ends with a big old question mark. I guess they are hoping to get another season or even a movie, though I don't know if Netflix will act as Daddy Warbucks again. Supposedly this season cost $45 million to produce, and at $8 a month subscriber rates, I don't quite see how Netflix expects to earn its money back.
Which brings me to the final aspect of Arrested Development, Netflix's controversial distribution plan, seen in past shows Lilyhammer, House of Cards, and the werewolf series (I'm too lazy to look it up). A popular habit with Netflix is to binge watch shows; I've never been a huge fan of this practice, though I do tend to watch shows at a faster rate then the week-by-week model of television. It's especially handy for shows like 24 or Lost which can be killed by commercial breaks; the hardest part of catching up with both those shows was having to tolerate their seasons over a full period of time like everyone else.
But there's also a conversation that happens amid social media and around the water cooler over week-by-week serials. Every week I'd call up my best friends to discuss the latest happenings on 24 or Lost because something outrageous tended to occur. Just earlier this week Game of Thrones dropped the most devastating twist on the show to date, which caused Twitter to go in an uproar and YouTube to produce a video showing several horrified reactions to the proceedings. Now what if HBO gave us the whole season at once? The same horrified reactions would occur, but at different times and there wouldn't be one huge conversation happening.
The biggest problem with this distribution method is that if you're going to watch it, you're going to do it as soon as the show is released. Otherwise, you'll miss out on the conversation all your friends are having on it, and if enough time passes, you won't care. I haven't seen House of Cards, though I've heard many great things; its just been so long since the show came out that I don't care anymore. The conversation about Arrested Development is essentially over. The show came out more then a week ago, and everyone who was going to watch it has. Hell, this review might be considered too late to the conversation.
So what should Netflix do? Release one episode a week? On the one hand, fans could wait 15 weeks until all episodes are out and then binge watch them. On the other, I think too many fans couldn't wait that long and Netflix could've gotten more subscriber mileage out of four months of Arrested Development. On the other hand, a lot of fans might've decided they didn't like the current season and unsubscribed. But that's the risk you take with TV, and why so many TV shows don't survive.
I still enjoyed seeing all these characters again; it was like a big reunion with old friends I hadn't seen in nearly a decade. But sometimes its better to preserve the memories rather then ruin them by seeing what your friends have become.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Either I've forgotten how to enjoy movies or movies have forgotten how to entertain me. Maybe it's just a cynical phase brought on by overwatching too many movies. I ventured out into the world nearly two years ago and was almost completely removed from films during that time. The less I saw of them, the more I enjoyed of the ones I did see. Maybe moderation is the key, as with anything. However, I'm not selfless enough to believe its my fault.
The latest Star Trek iteration is entertaining enough, but it fails to deliver on a promised darker premise and instead of being more cerebral it settles for showing us tons of explosions. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the rest of the Enterprise crew are back to face their greatest threat, a former Starfleet member who's gone rogue and is blowing up buildings. His name is John Harrison, he's played by Benedict Cumberbatch (who has quite the presence), and he may or may not be the eponymous Khan who has stood as Star Trek's greatest villain.
This one definitely zips along and keeps you entertained, but like most summer blockbusters, it leaves you nothing to savor after you've left. I have no complaints about the movie as it is overall, which is loud and provides viewers with plenty of entertainment. The characters are all familiar and established, which is always handy for movies like this. But the character arcs are ill defined and, as Mr. Spock would put it, quite illogical. Kirk has to learn how to take responsibility for his reckless behavior, Mr. Spock has to learn how to express his emotions, and Uhura needs to learn to stop being a nag. Probably the movie's biggest crime is it wastes Uhura with little more then fierce glances at Spock.
Abrams has become a master at making these films, but I've yet to see him put real emotional depth into any of his features. He knows he needs to put the character arcs in there, but I still feel like he doesn't know how to develop them in a natural way. These characters are defined by the action scenes instead of defining the action scenes, which makes Mr. Abrams a wizard action technician and nothing more. I fear for the forthcoming Star Wars more then I dread rewatching any of the prequel films.
It's also becoming a commonplace cliche these days for the villain to be captured and held, only to manipulate an escape. So goes The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Skyfall, each in turn holding the villain captive in the middle. It's a fairly new cliche that has yet to wear out its welcome, and it admittedly works when the villain is terrifying enough (which is definitely the case here). Cumberbatch, though imposing, is somehow under utilized; his motivation is explained in one monologue and I honestly still couldn't tell you what was going on with those capsules.
The real problem is there is no room to build momentum. The movie starts at a frenetic pace, slows down, and then reignites that pace and never stops. Each action subsequent action scene should be larger then the last, but honestly the movie has a hard time topping Spock in a middle of a volcano while Kirk and Bones and chased down by indigenous peoples, which opens the film. I don't mind endless action, but after seeing the same action scene over and over throughout the film, I just give up caring at the end.
I have no real beef with this movie except for an explosion on my Facebook feed of friends calling this film amazing. I disagree, and while the love for this movie doesn't bother me, it does confuse me. Maybe I am getting too cynical. Maybe I've seen too many movies recently. Maybe I should take a break until The Lone Ranger comes out in a month and a half, see if I enjoy that a lot more.
On second thought, I think I can live with being a cynic.
The latest Star Trek iteration is entertaining enough, but it fails to deliver on a promised darker premise and instead of being more cerebral it settles for showing us tons of explosions. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the rest of the Enterprise crew are back to face their greatest threat, a former Starfleet member who's gone rogue and is blowing up buildings. His name is John Harrison, he's played by Benedict Cumberbatch (who has quite the presence), and he may or may not be the eponymous Khan who has stood as Star Trek's greatest villain.
This one definitely zips along and keeps you entertained, but like most summer blockbusters, it leaves you nothing to savor after you've left. I have no complaints about the movie as it is overall, which is loud and provides viewers with plenty of entertainment. The characters are all familiar and established, which is always handy for movies like this. But the character arcs are ill defined and, as Mr. Spock would put it, quite illogical. Kirk has to learn how to take responsibility for his reckless behavior, Mr. Spock has to learn how to express his emotions, and Uhura needs to learn to stop being a nag. Probably the movie's biggest crime is it wastes Uhura with little more then fierce glances at Spock.
Abrams has become a master at making these films, but I've yet to see him put real emotional depth into any of his features. He knows he needs to put the character arcs in there, but I still feel like he doesn't know how to develop them in a natural way. These characters are defined by the action scenes instead of defining the action scenes, which makes Mr. Abrams a wizard action technician and nothing more. I fear for the forthcoming Star Wars more then I dread rewatching any of the prequel films.
It's also becoming a commonplace cliche these days for the villain to be captured and held, only to manipulate an escape. So goes The Dark Knight, The Avengers, and Skyfall, each in turn holding the villain captive in the middle. It's a fairly new cliche that has yet to wear out its welcome, and it admittedly works when the villain is terrifying enough (which is definitely the case here). Cumberbatch, though imposing, is somehow under utilized; his motivation is explained in one monologue and I honestly still couldn't tell you what was going on with those capsules.
The real problem is there is no room to build momentum. The movie starts at a frenetic pace, slows down, and then reignites that pace and never stops. Each action subsequent action scene should be larger then the last, but honestly the movie has a hard time topping Spock in a middle of a volcano while Kirk and Bones and chased down by indigenous peoples, which opens the film. I don't mind endless action, but after seeing the same action scene over and over throughout the film, I just give up caring at the end.
I have no real beef with this movie except for an explosion on my Facebook feed of friends calling this film amazing. I disagree, and while the love for this movie doesn't bother me, it does confuse me. Maybe I am getting too cynical. Maybe I've seen too many movies recently. Maybe I should take a break until The Lone Ranger comes out in a month and a half, see if I enjoy that a lot more.
On second thought, I think I can live with being a cynic.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Pain & Gain (2013)
The outrageous story behind Pain & Gain, Michael Bay's latest flic which surprisingly doesn't feature the destruction of a city, is a great morality tale of what junked-up morons will do when they think they deserve it all. This is a great story of the price of the American Dream and what it takes to achieve, and the movie even acknowledges Scarface and The Godfather as inspirations of people taking what they want.
Michael Bay has made half of a great movie. Unfortunately, its directed by Michael Bay, who never had the touch for deft and subtle storytelling.
Mark Wahlberg plays Daniel Lugo, a fitness guru bored with where he is and wanting to make it better. He enlists the help of another trainer (Anthony Mackie) and a reformed, Jesus loving ex-con (Dwayne Johnson) to kidnap a reach sandwich shop owner (Tony Shalhoub) because, well, he's a douche, and also he isn't committed to keeping his body in peak physical form.
It's a preposterous story that also happens to mostly true, and the cast really sells the material. The only weak link is a Romanian stripper played by Bar Paly, but thats because the script does her no credit. For a woman who got herself to America, she sure is dumb. This is also a black comedy, which works most of the time, though there are a few gratuitous gross-out gags (one involving pubic hair, the other a trip to the bathroom gone wrong). Overall though, there is the foundation in place for a great social satire on the American Dream.
But the script by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely is one of the laziest screenplays committed to film. The film jumps perspectives like a Game of Thrones novel, and we got long, extended voice overs from each character describing who they are and what they're thinking. Instead of letting us get to know these people, the film tells us who they are up front, and leaves no room for the relationships to be established.
Worse is Bay's style, with candy-saturated images that seem to come with the territory of setting a film in Miami. The frenetic energy is fine for an hour, but the film feels longer then the two hours it is, and you're left exhausted by the end of it (though not as a exhausted as some of Bay's other films). A more appropriate approach may have been to build the frenetic energy of the pace as the film moves along and the crimes the main characters commit become more heinous. Instead, the film starts at one pitch and maintains it throughout.
None of this should come as a shock to anyone. Mr. Bay has destroyed great material before, and why we thought this would be any better is beyond me. I got what I wanted out of Pain & Gain; its completely off the wall, and features of a story stranger then fiction. Unfortunately, Michael Bay made it, though in reality, it kind of is the perfect film for him to make.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
In Memoriam: Roger Ebert
"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear." - Roger Ebert
On Tuesday Ebert announced on his blog that he was going to take a leave of presence, but he wasn't done. He had plans to release a revamped version of his website (which I assume will still happen), was going to fundraise for another season of At the Movies, and was ready to settle down and finally review only movies he wanted to review. Now he is gone, but his presence as a film critic will continue to permeate our culture as more and more people discover his reviews and the sharp wit, yet personal touch they each exhibited.
Ebert loved movies, and his gift was the ability to eloquently and intelligently write reviews about each and every film he saw. Whether you agreed with his overall assessment or not, you still had a blast reading what he thought anyways, and more often then not, you would see his point. Ebert's greatest contribution was his long running Great Movie series, where he would write an essay about any given film or series every other week. There are three books so far, and I suspect the final bunch will be cobbled together for a final Great Movies book.
That series, more then any other, has opened my eyes to many different films. Through that series I discovered rare gems such as The Apu Trilogy, The Decalogue, Detour, Woman in the Dunes, and Out of the Past, among countless others. Whenever I watch an old movie, I always check to see if they are among the Great Movies, not because all those movies are great, but because Ebert's essays make great companion pieces to better understand what makes this movie so special.
Of course there is his long, illustrious television career where he was co-host to a reviews show, first with Gene Siskel and then later with Richard Roeper. Before Ebert took ill in 2006 and had to leave the show, I would try and watch every show I could (they aired fairly late on Saturday), and later reveled in the huge library of reviews the At the Movies provided us. Sadly, after the show was cancelled the site shut down, and now you must search You Tube for any Siskel and Ebert reviews.
Ebert taught me the art of communicating my feelings and passions for a movie. I remember engaging in long arguments about various films with a good friend back in High School, and these were all inspired by watching Ebert banter on his show. Siskel and Ebert were a match made in heaven, and sadly none of the hosts brought in to replace them could ever quite measure up.
I knew this day was coming. It's been looming ever since Ebert took ill back in 2006. But that doesn't make it easier to realize and accept that one of the greatest critics who ever lived is gone. Critics are generally a reviled bunch, as they make their living off of measuring other people's work and judging it. And while Ebert had his share of scathing reviews, I know he enjoyed watching movies and discovering great ones more then reviewing bad ones. It's a pleasure to find a great movie and share it with a friend, and that's what Ebert did for all of us these past 46 years.
On Tuesday Ebert announced on his blog that he was going to take a leave of presence, but he wasn't done. He had plans to release a revamped version of his website (which I assume will still happen), was going to fundraise for another season of At the Movies, and was ready to settle down and finally review only movies he wanted to review. Now he is gone, but his presence as a film critic will continue to permeate our culture as more and more people discover his reviews and the sharp wit, yet personal touch they each exhibited.
Ebert loved movies, and his gift was the ability to eloquently and intelligently write reviews about each and every film he saw. Whether you agreed with his overall assessment or not, you still had a blast reading what he thought anyways, and more often then not, you would see his point. Ebert's greatest contribution was his long running Great Movie series, where he would write an essay about any given film or series every other week. There are three books so far, and I suspect the final bunch will be cobbled together for a final Great Movies book.
That series, more then any other, has opened my eyes to many different films. Through that series I discovered rare gems such as The Apu Trilogy, The Decalogue, Detour, Woman in the Dunes, and Out of the Past, among countless others. Whenever I watch an old movie, I always check to see if they are among the Great Movies, not because all those movies are great, but because Ebert's essays make great companion pieces to better understand what makes this movie so special.
Of course there is his long, illustrious television career where he was co-host to a reviews show, first with Gene Siskel and then later with Richard Roeper. Before Ebert took ill in 2006 and had to leave the show, I would try and watch every show I could (they aired fairly late on Saturday), and later reveled in the huge library of reviews the At the Movies provided us. Sadly, after the show was cancelled the site shut down, and now you must search You Tube for any Siskel and Ebert reviews.
Ebert taught me the art of communicating my feelings and passions for a movie. I remember engaging in long arguments about various films with a good friend back in High School, and these were all inspired by watching Ebert banter on his show. Siskel and Ebert were a match made in heaven, and sadly none of the hosts brought in to replace them could ever quite measure up.
I knew this day was coming. It's been looming ever since Ebert took ill back in 2006. But that doesn't make it easier to realize and accept that one of the greatest critics who ever lived is gone. Critics are generally a reviled bunch, as they make their living off of measuring other people's work and judging it. And while Ebert had his share of scathing reviews, I know he enjoyed watching movies and discovering great ones more then reviewing bad ones. It's a pleasure to find a great movie and share it with a friend, and that's what Ebert did for all of us these past 46 years.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Spring Breakers (2013)
The film stars Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine as lifelong friends who want to escape their boring, nothing town for Spring Break in Florida, because as Gomez puts it in a long voice over piece (one of many that populate the film), they have a chance to find themselves. Now, I understand how travel can transform an individual, but that usually happens on a trip where you plan to experience different cultures (even if it is just to Texas to see how the southern half lives). I don't believe going to the beach and spending a week drunk, high, and having sex will enlighten you all that much to life, though I imagine it can be a ton of fun.
Lacking the necessary funds to fuel this sort of vacation, three of the girls stick up a local chicken shack with water pistols and a mallet, and are soon on their way to St. Petersburg, Florida, which turns out to be every bit as seedy as they had hoped. A good chunk of the movie is spent watching the girls party endlessly, doing cocaine, smoking weed, getting drunk, and tempting members of the opposite sex, before their illegal activities are shut down by those killjoys, the 5-0. Lucky for this quartet, a rapper/gangster named Alien (James Franco) bails them out of jail and takes them under his wing.
This is the kind of film where you are either with the style or not having any of it, and I found Korine's montages to be brilliant in small doses, but overwhelming at 92 minutes. There's very little character development here; Gomez is the only girl with a backstory, playing the aptly named Faith, a good christian girl who secretly just wants to cut loose and party. Korine squanders an opportunity to transform Gomez's character from devout Christian to insane partier/gangster, instead letting her exit the film about midway through just before things begin to escalate.
That leaves us with Hudgens, Benson, and Rachel Korine who are all barely defined beyond their obvious psychopathic tendencies. There is one chilling scene where they recount their stick-up for Gomez, and the glee with which they reenact the events (partially encouraged by the liquor they're imbibing) is both chilling and provides the film with some of its best moments. But they barely have any arc, going from penis hungry to indulging their new killer instincts by the end. Hudgens and Benson do have the film's best scene when they are brought back to Franco's pad and turn the tables on him in a most sadistic and surprising way.
The best part about the film, though, is James Franco, who proves he is more capable as a character actor then a straight man. With cornrows and grilles, Franco's character is one you wish had more screen time, as he is one fascinating dude. The film's second half is propelled by a rivalry with an old friend (Gucci Mane), which leads to the films grisly ending. But again, the film offers us a taste of something great and pulls it out of our grasp before too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)