Earlier this year, a friend of mine wanted me to sit through the horror movie Hatchet written and directed by Adam Green. She had worked as the publicist for the movie and told me how popular the movie was. After sitting through 90 minutes of laughable acting (when Kane Hodder -- the former Jason Vorhees -- is giving the most nuanced performance in the film, that's saying something), derivative plot, REALLY bad special effects and over the top gore, she asked what I thought. I didn't want to be rude so I tried to find something positive to say and the best I could come up with "Well....the director kept the camera in focus most of the time".
Thus, it's understandable that she was not really looking forward to hearing my comments about his followup movie Frozen. Because she was also involved as the publicist for this movie, I can understand that she was afraid that I was going to trash this movie as much as I did Hatchet and I did for the trailer for the sequel Hatchet II. But, I was very happy to point out to her that my reaction to this movie was much different. While it did have some flaws, overall, I found it to be a very disciplined and well directed motion picture and one that shows that Adam Green does in deed have potential.
Frozen is, basically, a winter version of Deep Water (the wonderful film about a couple who get stranded in the middle of shark-infested waters with no hope in sight). In this film, 3 kids (Emma Bell as the cute, perky blonde, Kevin Zegers as her boyfriend and Shawn Ashmore as the wise-ass best friend) go on a skiing trip. They spend most of the day on the bunny slope because of Emma and convince the lift operator to allow them one last trip up to the top of the hill before the resort closes for the week.
Unfortunately, due to a series of misunderstandings, the resort shuts down while they're still in the lift approximately 50 feet in the air. As a result, they are stuck in a lift, freezing to death and it turns out that there are wolves wondering around ready to feast on them should they decide to come down from the lift.
The movie plays less like a horror movie (there's only a few scenes of actual violence) and more like a "dread" movie. From the moment they get stuck in the lift, the movie quickly develops a sense of helplessness as the characters make various attempts to save themselves and find the situation getting worse with each attempt. Throughout the film, the characters remain plausible and react in ways that most people would, first joking, then angry before moving onto shock and despair. Because of the believability, it keeps the story interesting.
What is most impressive is that Adam Green chose to avoid the senseless violence that he used in Hatchet and kept the most violent acts off screen. During one particularly violent scene, we see just the very beginning of it (so we know what is about to happen) and then the camera focuses on the reactions of the helpless onlookers. By doing it this way, he allows the audience to imagine the horrific acts and lends the film a tension that wouldn't have existed had he centered the camera on the attack itself. It's an idea that I wish more directors would think of using.
What is most surprising to me is how little of a release this movie was given. I remember seeing an ad for it last year (and was looking forward to it because it looked original and had the possibility of being good) but, for reasons that my friend told me about but escape me now, it was only released on 106 screens and was given almost zero publicity. That is a shame because, like Trick 'R Treat (another film from a new director that is much better than you would expect), this is a film that could find an audience if given a chance. Hopefully it will on DVD. I know that I for one will have no problem giving it a recommendation and it makes me look forward to the next film that Adam Green wants to do (as long as it's not Hatchet III).
Grade: B+
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Saw 3D -- Boredom in more multiple dimensions
I have a confession to make -- I have a love/hate relationship with the Saw series and own the first 6 movies. The reason for that is that I do admire what they set out to do. When the first movie came out, it attempted to be different from other mad slasher films. Unlike the standard mad slasher (where you have a killer slowly stalking horny teenagers), you have a killer who was different in that 1) he didn't actually kill anyone (theoretically, it was possible to survive his traps if you were willing to undergo a great degree of pain to do it); 2) he had a strong code of ethics (he hated murderers and his traps were designed to teach the victim a lesson). And, unlike most horror films, there was an actual plot and mystery to the first movie with a genuinely surprising ending. Thus, as ugly and violent as the movie was, I had to give the film credit for being different and original -- something not often found in horror films.
The rest of the series carried on with that trend. What became fascinating is that the plots became even more complex and the twists more surprising (Saw IV being the best example with a twist I genuinely didn't expect in terms of the chronology of events in the movie). Thus, the complicated nature of the story had to be admired. And, I admired the films for legitimately killing off characters but still finding a semi-plausible way to bring the actors back. Unfortunately, it was often undone by shoddy acting and the increasing requirement of the audience to accept that the killer had the wealth of Bill Gates to create such elaborate Rube Goldberg-esque traps (I wish they had, even once, in all 7 movies said that he was a millionaire to explain how he could afford to create the sets he did).
Which now leads us to what is, reportedly, the final film in the series (though the door is left open enough at the end to continue it if the grosses are high enough). Like previous films, the movie mostly consists of one guy walking through a series of traps involving people in his life (since this is the fourth film to try that storyline, it feels extremely redundant). In this case, the victim-du-jour is Bobby, a supposed survivor of one of Jigsaw's traps. He is on a speaking tour for his new book, detailing how he survived the trap and became a better person for it, when he is abducted and forced to undergo a series of trials.
Meanwhile, in the B-plot, Hoffman (the surviving heir to the Jigsaw legacy) is hunting down Jill, Jigsaw's ex-wife, in order to get revenge on her for her attack upon him at the end of the last movie. Out of the two storylines, this is the more interesting one and the one that I wished they had explored more. The better approach to the story would be to have the two of them attacking each other in a series of Jigsaw-style traps leading up to a showdown at the end. Unfortunately, Jill spends most of her time locked up and the showdown between them feels rushed.
As for the ending (the films became popular for their twist endings), I don't want to go too much into it for fear of spoiling it but it has the combined ability to be predictable and make no sense at the same time. Essentially, they have a character act in a way that makes no sense at all based on what we saw of them previously. They try to explain it in a series of rushed "flashbacks" but it still makes no sense for that character. Of all the twists in the film, this one was the lamest of all.
But, the film is not entirely flawed. There is one sequence at the beginning that was genuinely entertaining. In this sequence, the victims, instead of being locked up in a dank dungeon, are enclosed in a glass booth surrounded by people going to and from businesses. What is fascinating is not so much the trap (it's a standard "choose who dies"-style trap) but the reactions of the onlookers. Some try to help but most stand by gawking or snapping pictures on their cell phones. What is truly sad is that, if such a trap DID occur in real life, the reactions we see here are probably very realistic. It's a pity the rest of the film didn't have such a smart commentary on life. Then we would have had a smart ending to the series. Instead, we get one that is merely marking time until the end.
Grade: D+
The rest of the series carried on with that trend. What became fascinating is that the plots became even more complex and the twists more surprising (Saw IV being the best example with a twist I genuinely didn't expect in terms of the chronology of events in the movie). Thus, the complicated nature of the story had to be admired. And, I admired the films for legitimately killing off characters but still finding a semi-plausible way to bring the actors back. Unfortunately, it was often undone by shoddy acting and the increasing requirement of the audience to accept that the killer had the wealth of Bill Gates to create such elaborate Rube Goldberg-esque traps (I wish they had, even once, in all 7 movies said that he was a millionaire to explain how he could afford to create the sets he did).
Which now leads us to what is, reportedly, the final film in the series (though the door is left open enough at the end to continue it if the grosses are high enough). Like previous films, the movie mostly consists of one guy walking through a series of traps involving people in his life (since this is the fourth film to try that storyline, it feels extremely redundant). In this case, the victim-du-jour is Bobby, a supposed survivor of one of Jigsaw's traps. He is on a speaking tour for his new book, detailing how he survived the trap and became a better person for it, when he is abducted and forced to undergo a series of trials.
Meanwhile, in the B-plot, Hoffman (the surviving heir to the Jigsaw legacy) is hunting down Jill, Jigsaw's ex-wife, in order to get revenge on her for her attack upon him at the end of the last movie. Out of the two storylines, this is the more interesting one and the one that I wished they had explored more. The better approach to the story would be to have the two of them attacking each other in a series of Jigsaw-style traps leading up to a showdown at the end. Unfortunately, Jill spends most of her time locked up and the showdown between them feels rushed.
As for the ending (the films became popular for their twist endings), I don't want to go too much into it for fear of spoiling it but it has the combined ability to be predictable and make no sense at the same time. Essentially, they have a character act in a way that makes no sense at all based on what we saw of them previously. They try to explain it in a series of rushed "flashbacks" but it still makes no sense for that character. Of all the twists in the film, this one was the lamest of all.
But, the film is not entirely flawed. There is one sequence at the beginning that was genuinely entertaining. In this sequence, the victims, instead of being locked up in a dank dungeon, are enclosed in a glass booth surrounded by people going to and from businesses. What is fascinating is not so much the trap (it's a standard "choose who dies"-style trap) but the reactions of the onlookers. Some try to help but most stand by gawking or snapping pictures on their cell phones. What is truly sad is that, if such a trap DID occur in real life, the reactions we see here are probably very realistic. It's a pity the rest of the film didn't have such a smart commentary on life. Then we would have had a smart ending to the series. Instead, we get one that is merely marking time until the end.
Grade: D+
Monday, August 16, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: All the World's a Computer Game
For the past several years, movie studios have tried to adapt computer games into movies. Unfortunately, no matter how good or how much fun the original game was, the resulting movie (Tomb Raider, Super Mario Brothers, Streetfighter, Doom) bordered on awful. When the best movie is Mortal Kombat (dumb but actually fun in parts)*, this is definitely a sub-genre of movies that is best laid to rest.
Fortunately, director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) finally figured out the right formula for doing it with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Scott Pilgrim isn't based on a video game (it's actually based on a series of graphic novels) but all of the visuals make it feel like a video game. In fact, the basic premise of the movie (Scott Pilgrim must defeat seven evil ex's in order to win the heart of his true love) is set up like a computer game with each battle become more and more difficult and with him receiving points based on how well he did (and the enemies dissolving into coins that he can collect afterwards).
This is one of the most creative movies you will see this year. There is no attempt at believability or plausibility in Scott Pilgrim. Scott (played with effortless deadpan by Michael Cera who has perfected the role of nerdish young hero) is thin and weak looking but suddenly becomes a bad-ass fighter pulling off moves that no human being (outside of those born on Krypton or sporting a bat symbol on their chest) could do. There's no explanation for how he can fight like that because Wright knows that we don't care. It's just accepted that he can and we leave it at that.
Likewise, the visual images provide some of the best humor in the movie. From the 8-bit Univeral logo graphics (with corresponding 8-bit version of it's theme) to the coins and points mentioned above, you see comic book descriptions appearing on the screen ("Ring", "Thud", etc) and some of the visual transitions make this an almost effortless transition from comic book to screen. After a short while, you truly do feel like you are watching a true video adaption of a graphic novel.
And the actors are smart enough to realize that this is not a deep story. All of them play it at the surface level and push the overacting just far enough to make it feel like a cartoon without going too far over. Particular credit has to be given to Brandon Routh (as an evil ex who has intense mental powers due to being a vegan) who displays a large amount of good humor. Between this and his brief appearance in Zack & Miri Make a Porno (playing a former stud who fell in love with a gay porn star), he has made me completely realize that Superman Returns was not in the least way his fault.
But, for all it's visual tricks and styles, this does not feel like a gimmicky movie. After spending years reading comic books and playing video games, it is easy to view the world in "me-centered" pop-cultural terms. The movie uses the visual tricks not as gimmicks but as a way of showing how Scott Pilgrim views himself and his world. He never quite realizes that he is, at heart, a rather callous person (his way of breaking up with a girl is to say "We should break up .... or whatever" with a shrug) who has caused pain in the lives of others. But, even though is callow and self-centered, he is still sweet and charming enough (thanks to Cera's performance) to make us root for him and his romance with the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers.
But, like any computer game, the movie ends with the words "Continue?" These are nice and charming enough characters, especially the supporting cast, that I would be more than happy to pop in more quarters for another few levels of this game.
Grade: A
Fortunately, director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) finally figured out the right formula for doing it with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Scott Pilgrim isn't based on a video game (it's actually based on a series of graphic novels) but all of the visuals make it feel like a video game. In fact, the basic premise of the movie (Scott Pilgrim must defeat seven evil ex's in order to win the heart of his true love) is set up like a computer game with each battle become more and more difficult and with him receiving points based on how well he did (and the enemies dissolving into coins that he can collect afterwards).
This is one of the most creative movies you will see this year. There is no attempt at believability or plausibility in Scott Pilgrim. Scott (played with effortless deadpan by Michael Cera who has perfected the role of nerdish young hero) is thin and weak looking but suddenly becomes a bad-ass fighter pulling off moves that no human being (outside of those born on Krypton or sporting a bat symbol on their chest) could do. There's no explanation for how he can fight like that because Wright knows that we don't care. It's just accepted that he can and we leave it at that.
Likewise, the visual images provide some of the best humor in the movie. From the 8-bit Univeral logo graphics (with corresponding 8-bit version of it's theme) to the coins and points mentioned above, you see comic book descriptions appearing on the screen ("Ring", "Thud", etc) and some of the visual transitions make this an almost effortless transition from comic book to screen. After a short while, you truly do feel like you are watching a true video adaption of a graphic novel.
And the actors are smart enough to realize that this is not a deep story. All of them play it at the surface level and push the overacting just far enough to make it feel like a cartoon without going too far over. Particular credit has to be given to Brandon Routh (as an evil ex who has intense mental powers due to being a vegan) who displays a large amount of good humor. Between this and his brief appearance in Zack & Miri Make a Porno (playing a former stud who fell in love with a gay porn star), he has made me completely realize that Superman Returns was not in the least way his fault.
But, for all it's visual tricks and styles, this does not feel like a gimmicky movie. After spending years reading comic books and playing video games, it is easy to view the world in "me-centered" pop-cultural terms. The movie uses the visual tricks not as gimmicks but as a way of showing how Scott Pilgrim views himself and his world. He never quite realizes that he is, at heart, a rather callous person (his way of breaking up with a girl is to say "We should break up .... or whatever" with a shrug) who has caused pain in the lives of others. But, even though is callow and self-centered, he is still sweet and charming enough (thanks to Cera's performance) to make us root for him and his romance with the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers.
But, like any computer game, the movie ends with the words "Continue?" These are nice and charming enough characters, especially the supporting cast, that I would be more than happy to pop in more quarters for another few levels of this game.
Grade: A
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Inception:Who knew that dreams could be so literal?
Dreams are a fantastical place. Within our dreams, we can create complete universes. I've had dreams where I just go from location to location, with no care as to how I got there. I have conversations that make little to no sense. There are no beginnings or endings. Sometimes they're scary, sometimes they're fun and hauntingly wonderful. Laws of physics have no meaning within there. But the most amazing thing at all is that, while we're dreaming, they appear to make complete and perfect sense. As Leonardo DiCaprio comments in Christopher Nolan's epic movie Inception, "It's only when we wake up that we realize how wierd it was."
When I first heard that Christopher Nolan, following up on his masterpiece The Dark Knight with a $200 million tale about dream thieves, I was eagerly looking forward. This is a man who took a simple revenge tale and turned it upside down (Memento) and then followed it with Robin Williams' creapiest performance paired off with a reminder of why Al Pacino is so respected (Insomnia). Finally he redefined what a superhero movie can be by digging deep into the psyche of man who is obsessed with his role in life (Batman Begins) and an examination of how terrifying true chaos can be (The Dark Knight). With that resume behind him, I had nothing less than the highest expectations and, with an incredible trailer that showed a lot yet revealed very little, I was expecting to be blown away.
And, at times, I was. The tale is mesmerizing at times. Nolan, cleverly, uses the artifice of a standard heist drama to stage some jaw dropping sequences. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, an "extractor" who has made a profitable living out of invading people's dreams and stealing secrets that they have buried deep inside. He is hired now to do the opposite task -- an inception -- where he plants an idea inside a person's subconcious. He has to go many levels deep because he has to convince the person that it's their idea or else it will be rejected.
Nolan spends the first half of the film laying the groundwork and explaining the rules of the dreamworld. This is necessary because this is a very complex setup. It also allows us to meet the members of DiCaprio's team -- Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is Cobb's right-hand man, Eames (Tom Hardy) whose job is to impersonate people within the dream and Ariadne (Ellen Page) whose purpose is to construct the world of the dream. Because she is the new member of the team, she also acts as the audience's surrogate allowing the other character's to explain all of the rules and setup of dreams.
I won't go any further into the plot because it is best to experience it fresh and with as little foreknowledge as possible. But, unlike Knight and Day which revealed all of their best scenes in the trailer, Inception's trailer only gave you a taste of it's magnificence. The scene with the city folding onto itself? It's even better and grander in it's complete version. People fighting while floating in the hallway? Even more jaw dropping in the film. And the trailer gave no hint as to how complex the last half gets with dreams within dreams within dreams, all occurring simultaneously but at different speeds. The fact that Nolan managed to keep all of those balls in the air proves how masterful of a filmmaker he is.
But that's not to say there aren't disappointments in the film. In the first half, Nolan examines ideas such as creating complex mazes and reality on the fly that are never fully explored in the second half. And, also, with the exception of the hallway fight sequence, he never completely takes advantage of how fantastical dreams can get. One can only imagine what someone like Michel Gondry or David Lynch would have done with similar material.
But, that's not to say that I didn't love this movie. I was completely swept up into it and that is takes to Nolan and the cast. All of the cast members were smartly chosen for their roles. DiCaprio is proving more and more that he is one of the best actors of his generation. While Levitt and Page aren't really given much to do in terms of range, they make the most of it and you like their characters because of them. Also, Michael Caine (as Cobb's father) is now at the point of his career that all he has to do is show up and you admire whatever he has to say. It's a cameo performance but anytime spent with him is always enjoyable. I would talk about Marion Cotillard (as Cobb's wife, Mal) but to describe why I admired her performance would involve me having to talk more about the plot than I care to.
Is this the classic mind-bending tale that I hoped it would be? It falls a few steps short. Is it epic and engrossing? Most definately. Is Christopher Nolan now one of the best commercial story tellers working today? By a long shot.
So, how many days is until Batman 3 opens????????
Grade: A
When I first heard that Christopher Nolan, following up on his masterpiece The Dark Knight with a $200 million tale about dream thieves, I was eagerly looking forward. This is a man who took a simple revenge tale and turned it upside down (Memento) and then followed it with Robin Williams' creapiest performance paired off with a reminder of why Al Pacino is so respected (Insomnia). Finally he redefined what a superhero movie can be by digging deep into the psyche of man who is obsessed with his role in life (Batman Begins) and an examination of how terrifying true chaos can be (The Dark Knight). With that resume behind him, I had nothing less than the highest expectations and, with an incredible trailer that showed a lot yet revealed very little, I was expecting to be blown away.
And, at times, I was. The tale is mesmerizing at times. Nolan, cleverly, uses the artifice of a standard heist drama to stage some jaw dropping sequences. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Cobb, an "extractor" who has made a profitable living out of invading people's dreams and stealing secrets that they have buried deep inside. He is hired now to do the opposite task -- an inception -- where he plants an idea inside a person's subconcious. He has to go many levels deep because he has to convince the person that it's their idea or else it will be rejected.
Nolan spends the first half of the film laying the groundwork and explaining the rules of the dreamworld. This is necessary because this is a very complex setup. It also allows us to meet the members of DiCaprio's team -- Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is Cobb's right-hand man, Eames (Tom Hardy) whose job is to impersonate people within the dream and Ariadne (Ellen Page) whose purpose is to construct the world of the dream. Because she is the new member of the team, she also acts as the audience's surrogate allowing the other character's to explain all of the rules and setup of dreams.
I won't go any further into the plot because it is best to experience it fresh and with as little foreknowledge as possible. But, unlike Knight and Day which revealed all of their best scenes in the trailer, Inception's trailer only gave you a taste of it's magnificence. The scene with the city folding onto itself? It's even better and grander in it's complete version. People fighting while floating in the hallway? Even more jaw dropping in the film. And the trailer gave no hint as to how complex the last half gets with dreams within dreams within dreams, all occurring simultaneously but at different speeds. The fact that Nolan managed to keep all of those balls in the air proves how masterful of a filmmaker he is.
But that's not to say there aren't disappointments in the film. In the first half, Nolan examines ideas such as creating complex mazes and reality on the fly that are never fully explored in the second half. And, also, with the exception of the hallway fight sequence, he never completely takes advantage of how fantastical dreams can get. One can only imagine what someone like Michel Gondry or David Lynch would have done with similar material.
But, that's not to say that I didn't love this movie. I was completely swept up into it and that is takes to Nolan and the cast. All of the cast members were smartly chosen for their roles. DiCaprio is proving more and more that he is one of the best actors of his generation. While Levitt and Page aren't really given much to do in terms of range, they make the most of it and you like their characters because of them. Also, Michael Caine (as Cobb's father) is now at the point of his career that all he has to do is show up and you admire whatever he has to say. It's a cameo performance but anytime spent with him is always enjoyable. I would talk about Marion Cotillard (as Cobb's wife, Mal) but to describe why I admired her performance would involve me having to talk more about the plot than I care to.
Is this the classic mind-bending tale that I hoped it would be? It falls a few steps short. Is it epic and engrossing? Most definately. Is Christopher Nolan now one of the best commercial story tellers working today? By a long shot.
So, how many days is until Batman 3 opens????????
Grade: A
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Knight and Day: Who needs a plot when you have Tom Cruise?
After I left the theater seeing Knight and Day, I suddenly remembered one of the reasons I'm grateful I'm not a celebrity. Sure, they get paid millions of dollars, travel the world, live in gorgeous homes and hang out with beautiful women. But there is a price for that luxury. Every mistake you make, every stupid move you do, follows you around for the rest of your career and you get branded with the same vehemence by the public as if you slaughtered a group of orphans.
Tom Cruise is a perfect example. This is a man who is, for the most part a talented actor. He has played opposite some of cinema's best (Robert Duvall, Paul Newman, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson) and has held his own. He knows how to carry a film and make his characters likeable (Risky Business, Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men) or unlikeable (Tropic Thunder, Collateral) as needed. But what has been the crime that has made the public turn against him? Jumping up and down on a couch on Oprah and arguing with Matt Lauer on The Today Show. It makes me grateful that my career isn't judged by rants I've gone on or idiotic behavior I may have done or else I would be looking for the nearest refrigerator box to live in.
Those thoughts occurred to me after the movie because Cruise is easily the best thing about the otherwise completely disposable Knight and Day. In the movie (which makes less and less sense the more I thought about it), he plays a former secret agent who runs into Cameron Diaz at an airport. After a flight where he literally kills everyone other than Diaz (who somehow doesn't think it's strange that only about 1/2 dozen are on a flight that she was almost bumped from because it was "full"), he forces Diaz to go on the run with him as they cross numerous contenents while in the possession of a battery that never runs out of juice (which is shoved into a toy knight, hence one half of the title).
The plot never makes any lick of sense and has the least convincing ending of any film I have ever seen. After seeing the movie, a friend of mine asked me "Those people who were pursuing Cruise at the end -- were they good or bad guys?" It says a lot where, after thinking about it, I honestly had no idea. It's one thing to be confused by a David Lynch movie (I basically expect to be sitting there having no clue why there's a backwards talking dwarf on the screen) but with a summer action blockbuster, the plot should be a tad clearer and easier than follow than a governmental housing code (and more interesting too).
That's not to say that the movie didn't have possibilities. Cruise, as I mentioned at the beginning is quite good. He plays the character as an agent who is so bored by the proceedings that he has time to be completely polite to everyone (including a fireman whom he has just shot in the leg). That dichotomy to the insane proceedings does provide for more than a few laughs. Unfortunately, most of the film's best jokes are in the trailer so there's no major reason to go see the movie.
In the end, the movie is completely forgettable and another sign that this is definately not the best of summers. But, unlike others, I don't lay the blame for this at Cruise's feet. The man tried. Hopefully, next time he'll be given a project that will make us forgive him for the infamous crime of being excited while on a talk show and for stating an opinion he strongly believes in. Those are harsh acts to overcome but someday he will find a way to repent for the crime of being human.
Grade: C-
Tom Cruise is a perfect example. This is a man who is, for the most part a talented actor. He has played opposite some of cinema's best (Robert Duvall, Paul Newman, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson) and has held his own. He knows how to carry a film and make his characters likeable (Risky Business, Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men) or unlikeable (Tropic Thunder, Collateral) as needed. But what has been the crime that has made the public turn against him? Jumping up and down on a couch on Oprah and arguing with Matt Lauer on The Today Show. It makes me grateful that my career isn't judged by rants I've gone on or idiotic behavior I may have done or else I would be looking for the nearest refrigerator box to live in.
Those thoughts occurred to me after the movie because Cruise is easily the best thing about the otherwise completely disposable Knight and Day. In the movie (which makes less and less sense the more I thought about it), he plays a former secret agent who runs into Cameron Diaz at an airport. After a flight where he literally kills everyone other than Diaz (who somehow doesn't think it's strange that only about 1/2 dozen are on a flight that she was almost bumped from because it was "full"), he forces Diaz to go on the run with him as they cross numerous contenents while in the possession of a battery that never runs out of juice (which is shoved into a toy knight, hence one half of the title).
The plot never makes any lick of sense and has the least convincing ending of any film I have ever seen. After seeing the movie, a friend of mine asked me "Those people who were pursuing Cruise at the end -- were they good or bad guys?" It says a lot where, after thinking about it, I honestly had no idea. It's one thing to be confused by a David Lynch movie (I basically expect to be sitting there having no clue why there's a backwards talking dwarf on the screen) but with a summer action blockbuster, the plot should be a tad clearer and easier than follow than a governmental housing code (and more interesting too).
That's not to say that the movie didn't have possibilities. Cruise, as I mentioned at the beginning is quite good. He plays the character as an agent who is so bored by the proceedings that he has time to be completely polite to everyone (including a fireman whom he has just shot in the leg). That dichotomy to the insane proceedings does provide for more than a few laughs. Unfortunately, most of the film's best jokes are in the trailer so there's no major reason to go see the movie.
In the end, the movie is completely forgettable and another sign that this is definately not the best of summers. But, unlike others, I don't lay the blame for this at Cruise's feet. The man tried. Hopefully, next time he'll be given a project that will make us forgive him for the infamous crime of being excited while on a talk show and for stating an opinion he strongly believes in. Those are harsh acts to overcome but someday he will find a way to repent for the crime of being human.
Grade: C-
Monday, May 24, 2010
Lost: Journey’s End
Possibly the most difficult episode for any series is the final episode. When a series has been on for years and the network decides to cancel the show (or the producer/director/star(s) decide they don't want the show to continue) and they give the series a chance to wrap things up, this becomes a major challenge for the show. They have to come up with an episode that feels larger than a normal episode, gives the series a sense of finality while still remembering what made the show so good in the first place. And, as fans, we set even higher standards for these episodes because this is the last thing that we will take from the show. We can forgive a mediocre show if it's in the middle of its run but a mediocre or bad final episode? That is going to leave a taste you will not soon get rid of.
Fortunately, some series have gotten the final episode right. Some such as Mary Tyler Moore Show and Newhart went on series highs (Newhart especially, saved their very best episode for the last one) and some, such as St. Elsewhere, The Prisoner (60s version) and Angel went on divisive notes that have fans debating their endings years later. Unfortunately, too many others (Roseanne, Moonlighting, X-Files and M*A*S*H) went out on notes that sacrificed self-importance for remembering what made the shows so popular in the first place. And, finally, there are some (Seinfeld) that just went out on a lazy note.
So where does Lost rank in this continuum of series? Lost, with its 6 years of mysteries and complex stories involving tropical polar bears, time-travelling islands, smoke monsters and cursed numbers, had a really tough hill to climb. They had so many unanswered questions (some by design, some by necessity due to actors leaving the show) that, even with 2 ½ hour running time, it doesn't seem like the show could end on a satisfactory note that will please everyone.
And this ending won't please everyone. There are reviews and comments complaining that the ending was simplistic and predictable (which is odd because I had not read a single theory that predicted this particular ending and most weren't even close to being right) and said that the show should have ended in some other fashion (though the critics fail to explain how they would have ended it). What these reviews all uniformly complain of is that the show left too many questions unanswered and too many threads dangling.
What the reviews fail to grasp though is that the show was never about the mysteries. We don't need to know exactly why polar bears were brought to the island or why Walt was special. The show was always about the characters' journeys. As the producers explained in the recap show airing immediately before it, the title of the series referred to not just them being "lost" geographically but the fact that they were "lost" spiritually and emotionally as well. Looking at the original flashbacks, none of the main characters were happy or emotionally balanced (Jack was a doctor with severe daddy issues, Hurley was convinced his life was cursed, Sawyer was obsessed with finding the man who ruined his life, etc.) As Jacob mentioned in the episode near the end, they were all chosen as candidates because they were alone off island and needed the island to make them whole.
And that's what the series did. Through the course of many adventures, the characters slowly found their balance in life. Sawyer eventually got past his obsession and Hurley realized that he controlled his fate, not some numbers. They were ready to move on with the next stage in their journey through life.
And that is what the final episode displayed brilliantly – the final stage of their journey. [NOTE: THE REMAINDER OF THIS REVIEW WILL BECOME VERY SPOILERISH. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE EPISODE YET, STOP HERE]. The episode broke this journey up into 2 parts – the island world and the sideways world. In the island world, we had a definite end to the season-long arc involving Man in Black. Terry O'Quinn (who should already be preparing his Emmy acceptance speech) was at his most menacing and evil. O'Quinn, better than most actors, knows the power of a glance and how much information it can convey. Watch the episode again and pay attention to his eyes and you can see pages of character exposition in terms of when the character is confused, angry or scared. He does it all subtly and never draws attention to it and that is what makes it all the more impressive.
The series managed to come up a resolution that felt epic and plausible at the same time. The fight scene between Jack and Locke was better paced and filmed than some major motion pictures. It was hard not to cheer when Locke was finally kicked off the side and sent to his death. While there was still another act to follow from that (preventing the island from being destroyed), it never felt tacked on and flowed naturally from the story leading up to it.
Likeways, all of the characters emotional arcs came to a satisfying end. Jack finally found a purpose in life by sacrificing it, Sawyer assumed the role of a leader and Ben finally received the respect that he long desired. Each of the characters ended up in a place that made sense for them. Some remained on the island and some left and could continue on with their lives, much more balanced then when they first arrived.
And then there was the sideways universe. All season, producers Damon Lindeloff and Carton Cuse had been stating that the flash sideways were not glimpses into an alternate universe and that we were to pay attention to the small details throughout. They had also been stating from the very beginning of the series that the island was not purgatory. They never said that they wouldn't bring purgatory into it, just that the island was not it.
And that is where their brilliant misdirection came into play. In a final act that became more powerful as the scene went on, we discovered that the sideways world was actually the next step in their journey after passing away. It wasn't purgatory per se because they weren't atoning for their sins (in fact, most of them were actually happier in the sideways world) but it was a chance for them to finally come to terms with their lives and be prepared for the next stage. Locke got to live a life with Helen, Jack got to have a son, Sawyer was respectable and Ben was respected. But, as we found out, these events were all a fiction. It was a way of easing them into their afterlifes. The task they had to achieve here was to "let go" of their previous lives and be ready to move on.
And that leads us to the beauty of the final scene in the church. The characters were paired up with the person they were meant to be with on a spiritual level (Sawyer with Juliet, Kate with Jack, Sayid with Shannon, etc) and all brought together as one final reunion with the people who had the greatest impact on their lives. Now, willing to let go, they were now ready to move on.
Once this revelation was given, we then are given the perfect ending to the series and one that I do honestly believe they had planned for 6 years now. Jack, dying from the fatal stab wound inflicted by Locke, rushes out to the same woods that he first landed in in the pilot episode. He then collapses in the exact same spot he first landed and is visited by Vincent (the first creature he saw in the episode) who lays down next to him. After watching the plane escape to safety and knowing that he didn't die for nothing (which Locke predicted he would), he laughs and the camera closes in on his eye. While the series begins with a closeup of his eye opening, it now ends with his shutting.
Poetry, resolution of emotional arcs, items to think over and epic battles – what more could you ask of.
I will mass Lost and it's ambitious story telling. Series like this are extremely rare and I am happy that it ended on such a strong note.
Grade: A+
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Lost & 24: The end of an era
Next week, we will be wishing farewell to 2 tv series -- Lost and 24. It is sad to see them leave the air because both, in their own ways, were inventive and imaginative stories. While neither was perfect and both had their own story-telling flaws, one can't deny the creativity that went into both shows.
24 first aired shortly after 9/11. In fact, the original pilot episode had to be reedited because the network was scared that seeing a plane explode on television just a few weeks after we saw the real thing might not be the best move. The show then managed to predict the future by showing us a black President (back when Obama was completely unheard of outside of Illinois) and laid the groundwork for a national debate on the use of torture to obtain information. Lost in all of this discussion was a well-done series that moved along at a pace that most movies would envy. Other shows (such as Heroes) attempted to end on cliff hangers but 24 was able to keep the audience hooked and wanting to see more.
This was a show that never should have worked. It was a gimmick show (each hour represented 1 hour of real time over the course of a 24-hour season) and the plot twists becaming increasingly ridiculous. You had to also accept many plot contrivances (such as a hostage crisis that lasts for 25 minutes in real time but is treated as if it lasted for hours or days) and the predictability of the season (each season there HAD to be a mole who would betray the heroes). The plots were so over the top that it made the James Bond saga look like a Ken Burns documentary.
But, in spite of its flaws, it worked. What carried it through the 9 years was Kiefer Sutherland. No matter how goofy the plot, his character of Jack Bauer (the stalwart and almost super human hero) was completely invested in the storyline. You bought into the story because HE bought into it. He was a true hero for the 21st century.
Likewise, Lost, has a storyline that started off mysterious and became increasingly convoluted as time went on. At one point, last season, one of the characters attempted to recite what generally occurred over the previous 4 years to his mother. At the end, his mother had the same look of confusion that anyone would have if you tried to summarize the storyline to an outside. Is there any real sensible way to bring together a time-travelling island, tropical polar bears, vengeance-seeking-god-like brothers AND an airplane crash in a way that makes any sort of sense? If there is, let me know, because I would love to use that summary to explain the show to others who haven't watched it.
But, I love the show--absolutly, unabashedly, love the show. I don't attempt to make complete sense of it. There are questions and mysteries that will never be explained and plot threads that will be forever left dangling. There are contradictions in the storyline that give the impression that the creators were making up the details as they went. The best way to appreciate this show, though, is to not focus on the details but on the big picture. When you do that, you will see that this is one of the most epic stories ever told. This is a show that dared to have 16 characters in the opening credits AND to tell a story that spanned several continents and a couple of thousand years. It was a thought-provoking show that incorporated philosophy, religion and science fiction all together into one giant package that was entertaining at the same time.
I think that is what I will miss about both series -- they dared to be different. When one of the biggest announcements of next year's shows is a spinoff of Law & Order and they claim that it's different because it's set in Los Angeles instead of New York (the title of the series -- Law & Order: LA. How long did it take for them to think that one up?), it's sad to see the end of 2 shows that pushed the norm and stuck to their guns for being different.
24 and Lost were not easy shows to follow. Both required constant viewing because of the serialized nature of the series. Both also expected the audience to accept something different or clever. But, if you went with it, you were rewarded with many hours of entertaining television. And I applaud and thank the networks for giving them a chance. It is sad to see them go but I will be happy that they existed.
24 first aired shortly after 9/11. In fact, the original pilot episode had to be reedited because the network was scared that seeing a plane explode on television just a few weeks after we saw the real thing might not be the best move. The show then managed to predict the future by showing us a black President (back when Obama was completely unheard of outside of Illinois) and laid the groundwork for a national debate on the use of torture to obtain information. Lost in all of this discussion was a well-done series that moved along at a pace that most movies would envy. Other shows (such as Heroes) attempted to end on cliff hangers but 24 was able to keep the audience hooked and wanting to see more.
This was a show that never should have worked. It was a gimmick show (each hour represented 1 hour of real time over the course of a 24-hour season) and the plot twists becaming increasingly ridiculous. You had to also accept many plot contrivances (such as a hostage crisis that lasts for 25 minutes in real time but is treated as if it lasted for hours or days) and the predictability of the season (each season there HAD to be a mole who would betray the heroes). The plots were so over the top that it made the James Bond saga look like a Ken Burns documentary.
But, in spite of its flaws, it worked. What carried it through the 9 years was Kiefer Sutherland. No matter how goofy the plot, his character of Jack Bauer (the stalwart and almost super human hero) was completely invested in the storyline. You bought into the story because HE bought into it. He was a true hero for the 21st century.
Likewise, Lost, has a storyline that started off mysterious and became increasingly convoluted as time went on. At one point, last season, one of the characters attempted to recite what generally occurred over the previous 4 years to his mother. At the end, his mother had the same look of confusion that anyone would have if you tried to summarize the storyline to an outside. Is there any real sensible way to bring together a time-travelling island, tropical polar bears, vengeance-seeking-god-like brothers AND an airplane crash in a way that makes any sort of sense? If there is, let me know, because I would love to use that summary to explain the show to others who haven't watched it.
But, I love the show--absolutly, unabashedly, love the show. I don't attempt to make complete sense of it. There are questions and mysteries that will never be explained and plot threads that will be forever left dangling. There are contradictions in the storyline that give the impression that the creators were making up the details as they went. The best way to appreciate this show, though, is to not focus on the details but on the big picture. When you do that, you will see that this is one of the most epic stories ever told. This is a show that dared to have 16 characters in the opening credits AND to tell a story that spanned several continents and a couple of thousand years. It was a thought-provoking show that incorporated philosophy, religion and science fiction all together into one giant package that was entertaining at the same time.
I think that is what I will miss about both series -- they dared to be different. When one of the biggest announcements of next year's shows is a spinoff of Law & Order and they claim that it's different because it's set in Los Angeles instead of New York (the title of the series -- Law & Order: LA. How long did it take for them to think that one up?), it's sad to see the end of 2 shows that pushed the norm and stuck to their guns for being different.
24 and Lost were not easy shows to follow. Both required constant viewing because of the serialized nature of the series. Both also expected the audience to accept something different or clever. But, if you went with it, you were rewarded with many hours of entertaining television. And I applaud and thank the networks for giving them a chance. It is sad to see them go but I will be happy that they existed.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Iron Man 2:Summer time has officially begun....
Two years ago, there was a major shock in the world of comic book movies. I'm not talking about The Dark Knight. That film, as good as it was (and I am on the side that views it as one of the best movies of the decade), it's quality and success were not that surprising (you had a successful director doing a sequel to well-respected movie with an extremely talented cast). Instead, I'm talking about Iron Man, which started out the summer season. Iron Man is the movie that Robert Downey Jr., as respected as he was, could be a legitimate movie star as well as a trained actor. It also took a character that was not that well known and made him immensely popular with director Jon Favreau using similar techniques as was used far less successfully in Daredevil.
As should be expected, because of its success, we have Iron Man 2, which continues the story and, like most sequels, does it bigger and more expensively. Actually, as part of an ultra-ambitious project, Iron Man 2 is actually the next chapter in a much larger series of films ultimately leading up to The Avengers which will feature the actors and characters from Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk as well as the upcoming movies Thor and Captain America.
This movie, though, focuses further on on Tony Stark who, at the end of the last movie, announced to the world that he was Iron Man. The movie explores the ramifications of that decision. Because his suit is so powerful, the government wants it turned over to them so that they can build an army out of it. Also opposing him is a weapons manufacturer, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) who enlists the services of a Russian physicist harboring an old family grudge (Mickey Roarke). Add to that the fact that he is allowing fame go to his head and his company suffers so he makes his right-hand girl, Pepper Potts the new CEO. In addition, he is beginning to realize that the suit which makes him so powerful is slowly poisoning his blood stream.
As you could guess, this is an extremely crowded movie. Like Batman Returns (which also featured multiple villains and numerous storylines), this movie is so busy creating the next plot point, there is less time for character development. As a result, some of the characters such as Stark's best friend, Rhodey (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard from the first movie), is given too little screen time. Also, some of the plot points, such as Scarlett Johanson as a new office worker seem awfully rushed and incomplete. It's almost as if they were trying to cram 6 hours worth of movies into just 2 hours.
Also, Favreau relies a little heavily on the special effects for the action scenes. Near the end, the movie becomes a battle between the CGI effects and it's nowhere as interesting as some of the earlier scenes where you could see the actors and follow exactly what was going on.
What is probably the biggest flaw with the movie is that, at no time, do you feel that Iron Man is in danger. In films like Superman 2, Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight, the audience truly wondered how the hero was going to defeat the villain. Deep down, you knew the hero would win but it was unclear how. With Iron Man 2, there is no real mystery to that. The ending is fairly clear and it never really looks like Stark is all that worried about defeating Rockwell and Roarke. Thus, there's little suspence to the action scenes and the big set pieces come off as rather hollow.
What does save the movie though and makes it worth watching are the actors. Robert Downey Jr. is an absolute delight as Stark. He makes good use of his gift for tossing off one-liners and lightens up most of his scenes. In fact, the movie is at its best when it's dealing with the light comedy. You can tell Jon Favreau is much more comfortable during these bits and they feel far more natural than the more action-oriented scenes.
As a note for those who do go see it: stay through the closing credits. Afterwards, there's a quick scene previewing what will be the next chapter in this saga.
Grade: C+
As should be expected, because of its success, we have Iron Man 2, which continues the story and, like most sequels, does it bigger and more expensively. Actually, as part of an ultra-ambitious project, Iron Man 2 is actually the next chapter in a much larger series of films ultimately leading up to The Avengers which will feature the actors and characters from Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk as well as the upcoming movies Thor and Captain America.
This movie, though, focuses further on on Tony Stark who, at the end of the last movie, announced to the world that he was Iron Man. The movie explores the ramifications of that decision. Because his suit is so powerful, the government wants it turned over to them so that they can build an army out of it. Also opposing him is a weapons manufacturer, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) who enlists the services of a Russian physicist harboring an old family grudge (Mickey Roarke). Add to that the fact that he is allowing fame go to his head and his company suffers so he makes his right-hand girl, Pepper Potts the new CEO. In addition, he is beginning to realize that the suit which makes him so powerful is slowly poisoning his blood stream.
As you could guess, this is an extremely crowded movie. Like Batman Returns (which also featured multiple villains and numerous storylines), this movie is so busy creating the next plot point, there is less time for character development. As a result, some of the characters such as Stark's best friend, Rhodey (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard from the first movie), is given too little screen time. Also, some of the plot points, such as Scarlett Johanson as a new office worker seem awfully rushed and incomplete. It's almost as if they were trying to cram 6 hours worth of movies into just 2 hours.
Also, Favreau relies a little heavily on the special effects for the action scenes. Near the end, the movie becomes a battle between the CGI effects and it's nowhere as interesting as some of the earlier scenes where you could see the actors and follow exactly what was going on.
What is probably the biggest flaw with the movie is that, at no time, do you feel that Iron Man is in danger. In films like Superman 2, Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight, the audience truly wondered how the hero was going to defeat the villain. Deep down, you knew the hero would win but it was unclear how. With Iron Man 2, there is no real mystery to that. The ending is fairly clear and it never really looks like Stark is all that worried about defeating Rockwell and Roarke. Thus, there's little suspence to the action scenes and the big set pieces come off as rather hollow.
What does save the movie though and makes it worth watching are the actors. Robert Downey Jr. is an absolute delight as Stark. He makes good use of his gift for tossing off one-liners and lightens up most of his scenes. In fact, the movie is at its best when it's dealing with the light comedy. You can tell Jon Favreau is much more comfortable during these bits and they feel far more natural than the more action-oriented scenes.
As a note for those who do go see it: stay through the closing credits. Afterwards, there's a quick scene previewing what will be the next chapter in this saga.
Grade: C+
Monday, May 3, 2010
Chess:Sometimes it's the simple things that count
Last Saturday evening, I attended a performance of the Tim Rice musical Chess at the 14th Street Theater in Cleveland. It was performed by students attending Baldwin-Wallace University and, much to my surprise, they managed to outclass the professionals who were performing down the street at Playhouse Square. What they lacked in polish and experience they more than made up for in energy and style.
Chess is a musical that tells the story of 2 World Chess Championship matches, the first in Merano and the second in Bangcock. Involved in the matches are the American champion, Freddy who is all swagger and bravado and his Russian opponent Anatoly who mixes his intelligence with deep feelings of love. The games become complex when Anatoly falls in love with Freddy's assistant, Florence, who allows herself to be manipulated by the death of her father. All three are moved around like pieces on a chess board by their handlers and it becomes clear that they are merely pawns in a giant political game.
The 14th Street Theater can be graciously termed as "intimate" and it's obvious from the design (seats at small tables rather than in rows, the audience almost dangerously close to the stage) that it was made more for stand up comedy rather than theatrical performances. Thus, putting on an elaborate show would be problematic at best. Rather than being hampered by this, the director, Victoria Bussert, took advantage and made the show as simple as possible. The stage consists of one set, a black and white checker-boarded design and a couple of chairs for cast members to sit on. No back drops are used and it is left to the audience's imagination to paint in what is going on.
The costumes and casting are likewise are brilliantly simple. All of the Americans (with the exception of Florence) are in white and the Russians are in black. The chorus is also equally divided into the black/white contrast with only costume change occurring in the show and that is done to represent a change in a character's role in the story. By keeping things so simple, it allows the audience to become even more caught up in the story and forces us to pay more attention. It also allows for more beautifully surreal images such as the chorus members dancing out chess moves during the tournaments. As a result, the show at times went from simple to haunting almost effortlessly.
As for the cast, they were all well chosen. I would list the actors but the program was confusing in that it listed both "American" and "Russian" casts, 2 different casts for the same roles (such as 2 actors for the roles of Freddy). No explanation of what this was or which cast the audience was seeing that night. As a result, all I can say is that Freddy was performed with an appropriate amount of swagger and egotism with the actor using his height to loom over actors in an arrogant manner that masked his self-pity. The true scene stealer, though, was Anatoly who brought down the house with "Anthem" which closed out Act 1. He made the audience sympathize with his dillemas and realize that his choices, while tough, were made in the only manner possible.
The major flaw in the production would have to lay with the sound. Due to the acoustics in the theater, the orchestra often overwhelmed the singers. While that is forgiveable, what was bad was that few of the actors (including some of the leads) weren't miked to give them a chance at being heard. Thus, some of the lyrics were muffled and made it difficult to follow at times.
But, in the end, it was simplicity and energy that won out. It was obvious that everyone involved loved what they were doing and gave it all they had. I will take that anyday over a professional actor sleep walking his way through a performance. It might not be as polished but it was definately a lot more fun.
Chess is a musical that tells the story of 2 World Chess Championship matches, the first in Merano and the second in Bangcock. Involved in the matches are the American champion, Freddy who is all swagger and bravado and his Russian opponent Anatoly who mixes his intelligence with deep feelings of love. The games become complex when Anatoly falls in love with Freddy's assistant, Florence, who allows herself to be manipulated by the death of her father. All three are moved around like pieces on a chess board by their handlers and it becomes clear that they are merely pawns in a giant political game.
The 14th Street Theater can be graciously termed as "intimate" and it's obvious from the design (seats at small tables rather than in rows, the audience almost dangerously close to the stage) that it was made more for stand up comedy rather than theatrical performances. Thus, putting on an elaborate show would be problematic at best. Rather than being hampered by this, the director, Victoria Bussert, took advantage and made the show as simple as possible. The stage consists of one set, a black and white checker-boarded design and a couple of chairs for cast members to sit on. No back drops are used and it is left to the audience's imagination to paint in what is going on.
The costumes and casting are likewise are brilliantly simple. All of the Americans (with the exception of Florence) are in white and the Russians are in black. The chorus is also equally divided into the black/white contrast with only costume change occurring in the show and that is done to represent a change in a character's role in the story. By keeping things so simple, it allows the audience to become even more caught up in the story and forces us to pay more attention. It also allows for more beautifully surreal images such as the chorus members dancing out chess moves during the tournaments. As a result, the show at times went from simple to haunting almost effortlessly.
As for the cast, they were all well chosen. I would list the actors but the program was confusing in that it listed both "American" and "Russian" casts, 2 different casts for the same roles (such as 2 actors for the roles of Freddy). No explanation of what this was or which cast the audience was seeing that night. As a result, all I can say is that Freddy was performed with an appropriate amount of swagger and egotism with the actor using his height to loom over actors in an arrogant manner that masked his self-pity. The true scene stealer, though, was Anatoly who brought down the house with "Anthem" which closed out Act 1. He made the audience sympathize with his dillemas and realize that his choices, while tough, were made in the only manner possible.
The major flaw in the production would have to lay with the sound. Due to the acoustics in the theater, the orchestra often overwhelmed the singers. While that is forgiveable, what was bad was that few of the actors (including some of the leads) weren't miked to give them a chance at being heard. Thus, some of the lyrics were muffled and made it difficult to follow at times.
But, in the end, it was simplicity and energy that won out. It was obvious that everyone involved loved what they were doing and gave it all they had. I will take that anyday over a professional actor sleep walking his way through a performance. It might not be as polished but it was definately a lot more fun.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
“Remakes”, “Reimaginings”, “Reboots”: Everything Old is New Again
Tomorrow, a new version of Wes Craven's horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street is being released. From the plot synopsis, it appears to follows the original Nightmare exactly but with a new actor (Jackie Earl Haley from The Watchmen, Little Children and Shutter Island) taking over Robert Englund's role as Freddie Krueger. I was discussing the film with a friend and a question came up with how I felt about remakes.
While I would love to give a simple, kneejerk answer of "they stink. It's just Hollywood being lazy, unimaginative and greedy" (and that is no doubt true in many cases), I can't use that as a blanket statement. There are too many remakes that were worthy of being done and more than justified their existence:
- The Fly – the first and biggest example that I think when I think of worthy remakes. The original was a cheesy sci-fi film that is worthy of being ridiculed. The remake, on the other hand, was dark, scary, intentionally funny and featured Jeff Goldblum in Academy Award-nominated performance. The ending of the film is heartbreaking and proves the number 1 rule of worthy remakes – bring something new to the table.
- The Fugitive – One of Harrison Ford's best action movies that is a prime example of how to pace a chase movie (the plot is concisely taken care of before the opening credits are even done) that was a worthy nomination for Best Picture and proved a great showcase both for Ford and Best Supporting Actor Tommy Lee Jones. The movie does so many things right (beginning with the fact that you are rooting for both of the actors even though they are at odds with each other) that to write it off as a "cheap remake" of the 1960s tv series would be to do this movie a great disservice.
- Batman Begins – Granted, almost no one will blame Christopher Nolan for choosing to go back to the beginning of Batman rather than continue from the abomination that is Batman & Robin (a film that almost completely derailed a franchise). Thus, in this case, "rebooting" the franchise turned out to be a brilliant decision because it allowed Nolan to start fresh and tell the story in his fashion.
- Star Trek – This will remain the perfect example of how to do a reboot that satisfies fans of the original while allowing you to start new. Unlike Batman Begins, Abrams had the unenviable job of having to do a prequel that didn't mess with the continuity of the original series (and Star Trek fans would have been rabid if there were). His solution was brilliant – create an alternate universe. This way, he can tell whatever story he wants and there is no continuity to worry about. In hindsight, it's obvious but brilliant nonetheless.
What the above movies have in common is that the film makers were less concerned with simply riding on the coat tails of the original source material and were more interested in telling a new story in an interesting way. In those cases, the fact that it's not "original" is trivial because the story or the style of storytelling is so fresh that it is more than forgivable. In too many cases, though, a remake is so faithful to the original and there is absolutely nothing new about it that you wonder if it would just have been easier to clean up the original print and rerelease that. Possibly the worst example of this is Gus Van Sant's Psycho. The remake is, literally, a shot-for-shot remake of the Alfred Hitchcock classic, complete with the same music, same dialogue and same camera angles. The only difference is that there are different actors in the roles and the remake is in color while the original is in black and white. To call that "fresh" is a joke at best and makes you wonder why the studio even wasted the time and talents of Van Sant and actors like Vince Vaughn, Julianne Moore, Viggo Mortensen and William H. Macy among others.
Thus, will Nightmare on Elm Street be a worthy remake like The Fly or will it ring hollow and unnecessary like Psycho? I am a fan of the original film (despite its low budget and laughable acting, there are scenes that truly feel like they have come from a nightmare) and am cynical at best. But, I will go see it and, hopefully, will be proven wrong. Hopefully, director Samuel Bayer will find a new way to haunt our dreams and not make me say "Now, where the original DVD again?"
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Explosions, Gun Fights, Sexy Women & a Nonsensical Plot -- Now THAT'S a Movie!!
I love steak. I love it medium with onions and mushrooms and some mashed potatoes and gravy on the side. Combine that with a good salad covered in French dressing and you have yourself a meal.
Other times, I enjoy getting a Big Mac with french fries, apple pie and a chocolate shake? Is it good for me? Not even remotely close. But it's quick, it's cheap and it tastes good. And, at the moment, that's all that matters.
The same goes for movies. I've got 600+ DVDs and counting in my collection. I've got ones that I will regard as classics (Godfather, Pulp Fiction, 12 Angry Men, Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark) but occassionally I'm in the mood for a movie that is completely nonsensical but moves fast and never slows down for trivial items like plot or characterization.
The Losers more than fits that bill. Based on a comic book (and sounding more than a bit like The A-Team which is also coming out this summer), a group of Army experts are set up in a mission and presumed dead. Fortunately they didn't die but they vow revenge upon the insanely evil mastermind Max (Jason Patric displaying more personality than he has in any role previously) who has moved on from them and moved onto purchasing eco-friendly terrorist weapons (making this an oddly appropriate movie to be released on Earth Day).
The team consists of the leader Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, The Watchmen), tech expert and wise-ass (Chris Evans, Fantastic Four and the upcoming Captain America), weapons expert Roque (Idris Elba, The Office), sharpshooter Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and Pooch (Columbus Short). The group is funded by and assisted by the misterious Aisha (Zoe Saldana, Avatar and Star Trek). The movie basically is a collection of action set pieces including a short but hilarious breaking into a building by Jensen (while the punchline is revealed in the trailer, the build up is even better).
Director Sylvain White (Stomp the Yard) moves the movie along at a crisp pace. Realizing that the plot makes less than zero sense (after sitting through it, I'm STILL trying to figure it out and can't), he wisely does a series of quick cuts reminiscent of Michael Bay but ably keeps the movie at a comic book level. Unlike the more ambitious but ultimately disappointing Kick Ass, The Losers maintains it's tone throughout the entire film.
Is this film good in the classical sense of the word (subtety, complexity, growth of characters, etc)? Not even close. But, sometimes you don't want "good". Sometimes all you want is the Big Mac and this will more than satisfy your hunger.
Grade: B-
Other times, I enjoy getting a Big Mac with french fries, apple pie and a chocolate shake? Is it good for me? Not even remotely close. But it's quick, it's cheap and it tastes good. And, at the moment, that's all that matters.
The same goes for movies. I've got 600+ DVDs and counting in my collection. I've got ones that I will regard as classics (Godfather, Pulp Fiction, 12 Angry Men, Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark) but occassionally I'm in the mood for a movie that is completely nonsensical but moves fast and never slows down for trivial items like plot or characterization.
The Losers more than fits that bill. Based on a comic book (and sounding more than a bit like The A-Team which is also coming out this summer), a group of Army experts are set up in a mission and presumed dead. Fortunately they didn't die but they vow revenge upon the insanely evil mastermind Max (Jason Patric displaying more personality than he has in any role previously) who has moved on from them and moved onto purchasing eco-friendly terrorist weapons (making this an oddly appropriate movie to be released on Earth Day).
The team consists of the leader Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, The Watchmen), tech expert and wise-ass (Chris Evans, Fantastic Four and the upcoming Captain America), weapons expert Roque (Idris Elba, The Office), sharpshooter Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and Pooch (Columbus Short). The group is funded by and assisted by the misterious Aisha (Zoe Saldana, Avatar and Star Trek). The movie basically is a collection of action set pieces including a short but hilarious breaking into a building by Jensen (while the punchline is revealed in the trailer, the build up is even better).
Director Sylvain White (Stomp the Yard) moves the movie along at a crisp pace. Realizing that the plot makes less than zero sense (after sitting through it, I'm STILL trying to figure it out and can't), he wisely does a series of quick cuts reminiscent of Michael Bay but ably keeps the movie at a comic book level. Unlike the more ambitious but ultimately disappointing Kick Ass, The Losers maintains it's tone throughout the entire film.
Is this film good in the classical sense of the word (subtety, complexity, growth of characters, etc)? Not even close. But, sometimes you don't want "good". Sometimes all you want is the Big Mac and this will more than satisfy your hunger.
Grade: B-
Saturday, April 24, 2010
A huge pet peeve of mine (talkers in a theater)....
This afternoon, I went to see August:Osage County up at Playhouse Square in Downtown Cleveland (part of the Broadway series that I'm a season subscriber to). The play was a 3 1/2 hour serious melodrama done in the style of Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil and, while slow at the beginning, quickly picked up steam as the play went along and ended on a really powerful note.
This posting isn't about the play however. It's about the group of women who were sitting 2 rows back of me in the theater. Throughout the entire play, they wouldn't stop talking. They would make comments to each other and to themselves almost nonstop. And, we're not talking quiet whisperings, we're talking almost normal volume conversations. And the comments they made were beyond inane. For example, at one point a character mentions that he's been married 38 years so, of course, the genius in the group said to her friend "38 years, huh?". And the dialogue remained this scintilating and at the same relative volume. If the action or dialogue on the stage got louder, so did the conversation in the group. It went beyond distracting into the aggravatingly annoying.
I would have said something to them along the lines of "some of us paid to hear the actors on stage, not you" but I was convinced by my mother and sister to not say anything and just "deal with it" (they were probably afraid that I would be less than tactful and it would, no doubt, result in ME being asked to leave the theater). Thus, I spent the bulk of 3 1/2 hours simmering and wishing that they would FINALLY shut up.
What annoys me is that this is a problem that is more and more prevalent. I know it's been a problem in movie theaters for years but, until now, I've been happy to avoid encountering it in a live theater production. At least in that situation, the patrons realize that this is not their home where they can make comments throughout and that it is rude to the other guests who paid some fairly expensive prices to hear something that can only be done once (at least with a movie, I can always watch it again later to catch dialogue or a performance that I might have missed -- with live theater, that isn't possible). But today proved to me that society is becoming less and less civil.
As further evidence of lack of civility, at least 3 times in the play I heard someone's cell phone go off. I have yet to figure out why people can't learn to switch the phone to vibrate. I do that as a matter of course but there is still a segment of the population who have to master this complex feat. Because of that, during some intense sequence in the play, I'm suddenly hear a phone going off. It's distracting and too easily takes us out of the play.
On behalf of all of us who like to actually hear the actors and get lost is a story that we paid money to watch, I beg now of the segment that feels a need to talk or let their phones ring. I beg that you either respect our rights to enjoy the play withour constant commentary. Either that of just not come and restrict yourself to watching stuff on a TV set where your blather will only annoy your family members.
They might have to put up -- I don't. Please respect that fact
This posting isn't about the play however. It's about the group of women who were sitting 2 rows back of me in the theater. Throughout the entire play, they wouldn't stop talking. They would make comments to each other and to themselves almost nonstop. And, we're not talking quiet whisperings, we're talking almost normal volume conversations. And the comments they made were beyond inane. For example, at one point a character mentions that he's been married 38 years so, of course, the genius in the group said to her friend "38 years, huh?". And the dialogue remained this scintilating and at the same relative volume. If the action or dialogue on the stage got louder, so did the conversation in the group. It went beyond distracting into the aggravatingly annoying.
I would have said something to them along the lines of "some of us paid to hear the actors on stage, not you" but I was convinced by my mother and sister to not say anything and just "deal with it" (they were probably afraid that I would be less than tactful and it would, no doubt, result in ME being asked to leave the theater). Thus, I spent the bulk of 3 1/2 hours simmering and wishing that they would FINALLY shut up.
What annoys me is that this is a problem that is more and more prevalent. I know it's been a problem in movie theaters for years but, until now, I've been happy to avoid encountering it in a live theater production. At least in that situation, the patrons realize that this is not their home where they can make comments throughout and that it is rude to the other guests who paid some fairly expensive prices to hear something that can only be done once (at least with a movie, I can always watch it again later to catch dialogue or a performance that I might have missed -- with live theater, that isn't possible). But today proved to me that society is becoming less and less civil.
As further evidence of lack of civility, at least 3 times in the play I heard someone's cell phone go off. I have yet to figure out why people can't learn to switch the phone to vibrate. I do that as a matter of course but there is still a segment of the population who have to master this complex feat. Because of that, during some intense sequence in the play, I'm suddenly hear a phone going off. It's distracting and too easily takes us out of the play.
On behalf of all of us who like to actually hear the actors and get lost is a story that we paid money to watch, I beg now of the segment that feels a need to talk or let their phones ring. I beg that you either respect our rights to enjoy the play withour constant commentary. Either that of just not come and restrict yourself to watching stuff on a TV set where your blather will only annoy your family members.
They might have to put up -- I don't. Please respect that fact
Monday, April 19, 2010
Kick Ass: Who wants to be a superhero?
Almost every boy when growing up dreamed of becoming a super hero. Whether you were Superman and were turning back time by flying backwards around the world or you were Batman and you using the Bat-arang on some villains, it was a normal fantasy. For me, I always wanted to be Spiderman. Not just because of the web-slinging ability (though, that was cool) but it was because he talked smack to the villains while kicking their butts at the same time. That was the cool thing about him – he was a nerd in high school but the moment he slipped on the red and blue costume, he was ultra cool.
Anyway, for most of us, those fantasies drifted away as we grew up. As teenagers, we still read comic books but there was less of the overt fantasizing as there was when we were younger. And, eventually, when we grew up, the fantasies went away entirely. We realized that, while it was a nice fantasy, to actually live out that fantasy in real life would result in most of us getting killed. If I walked up to a mugger while wearing a red & blue webbed skin-tight outfit, I better have the proportional strength of a spider because, otherwise, that mugger was going to pummel me into submission within 30 seconds.
That is the world that Kick
Ass lives in. None of the superheros in the movie have the ability to fly, spin webs, shoot beams from their eyes or have adamantium claws shooting from their fingers. Instead, these are ordinary people; people who live in our world and go through the problems that we face. Because they have no super powers, their weaknesses are simple: bullets, knives, fire and everything else that can hurt you and I.
The main character in Kick Ass is Dave Lizewski, an ordinary high school student who, one day, decides to become a super hero. Not because of some quest for vengeance but simply because he was tired of seeing people not helping others in need. So he puts on a green-dyed wet suit, adds 2 batons at weapons and calls himself "Kick Ass". At first, he gets nearly killed (literally) but he continues to pursue it and becomes an Internet sensation when one bystander captures on video his fighting back of some muggers.
This video now brings him to the attention of 2 other superheros – Big Daddy (a former cop played by Nicholas Cage) and Hit Girl (his 11-year-old assassin daughter played by Chloe Moretz from (500) Days of Summer). Big Daddy (who looks A LOT like Batman) has own personal vendetta against a mobster who was responsible for his wife's death and his false imprisonment years back. These lead to a series of ultra-violent encounters between the superheros and the mob.
This is a fascinating idea to explore. Most superhero movies (including Watchmen which had god-like character among the normal heros) all involve the standard superhero types – either they have super powers or they are insanely wealthy and brilliant and create their own super machines. Either way, these are not people I can directly relate to or expect to see in my normal life. With Kick Ass, these people you might be able to meet on our streets.
Unfortunately, what hurts the movie the most is its tone. The movie starts off as a parody of super hero films and at times is winking at the genre. Unfortunately, these moments are mixed with some extremely violent sequences. While directors like Quentin Tarantino can pull off that juxtaposition well, director Matthew Vaughn has a much tougher time and it becomes difficult to get caught up in the film because of the clashing of the moods.
In addition, the major character of Kick Ass is never made to be that interesting. While Aaron Johnson does a solid job making him ordinary, the movie makes him so ordinary that you start to lose any reason to be interested in him other than he goes around wearing a green wet suit. The movie could have jettisoned his entire story line and focused on Big Daddy and Hit Girl and the story would have been a far more interesting tale. With Big Daddy/Hit Girl, you have a father whose obsession with a past injustice causes him to turn his 11-year-old daughter into a lethal weapon and a child who can recite types of guns as easily as most little girls can name Hannah Montana songs. That is the story I'm interested in, not one about a kid who wants to be a superhero because he just decided to one day.
What's really a shame is that the movie does have one really good performance from Chloe Moretz. Like (500) Days of Summer, Chloe portrays a character who acts much older than her age. The fact that the actress is, in real life, only 11 years old, makes her performance all the more impressive. She avoids any cute young child ticks that she could have gone for and, instead, acts like a much older person. If the movie had focused it's attention on her, that would have been a superhero story that you would most definitely want to follow.
Grade: C+
Saturday, April 17, 2010
South Park:Still brilliant after all these years
Last week was South Park's 200th episode which they aptly titled "200" (Trey Park and Matt Stone are not the most subtle guys in the world). The episode, not their best work, was more of a "thank you" to the fans by bringing in references from a large number of their past episodes ranging from Mecha-Streisand to Tom Cruise's "In the Closet" episode to Al Gore's "Man/Bear Pig" and even hinted that we would find out who Cartman's dad was (it turns out that Cartman's mom WASN'T his dad after all).
What amazed me wasn't so much the episode but, realizing how long the show has been on. As of now, it has been on for 14 seasons. The only prime-time fictional network shows on the air currently that can claim a longer life are The Simpsons (22 seasons) and Law & Order (20 seasons). That's a severely impressive feat to achieve.
What is even more impressive is that the show is still as relevant, if not more so, than it was in the beginning. While it still sometimes relies a little heavily on scatalogical humor (a recent episode about the legalization of marijuana was more concerned with crude sight gags than anything else), it still manages to attack some very worthy targets. Just in recent seasons they have been spot on with some of their best satires ever:
What amazed me wasn't so much the episode but, realizing how long the show has been on. As of now, it has been on for 14 seasons. The only prime-time fictional network shows on the air currently that can claim a longer life are The Simpsons (22 seasons) and Law & Order (20 seasons). That's a severely impressive feat to achieve.
What is even more impressive is that the show is still as relevant, if not more so, than it was in the beginning. While it still sometimes relies a little heavily on scatalogical humor (a recent episode about the legalization of marijuana was more concerned with crude sight gags than anything else), it still manages to attack some very worthy targets. Just in recent seasons they have been spot on with some of their best satires ever:
- "Margaritaville" -- they managed to combine their commentary on the failing economy, the inability to truly explain what caused it, the publics reaction to it, the resurrection of Christ and a Margarita maker into a story that SOMEHOW made sense (the scene where we discover how the government determines how to save companies is blissfully brilliant)
- "You have 0 Friends" -- I have personal affection for this one because my long-time reluctance to join Facebook and this episode poked holes at the public's obsession with social networking. The fact that they managed to work in an extended Tron reference makes it all the sweeter.
- "Woodland Critter Christmas" -- the episode that dares you to become offended with images you truly wonder how they got past Comedy Central but done with such smart humor (it sounds and plays out just like a cheesy Christmas special) that you sit there in wonderment.
- "The Passion of the Jew" -- another one I have personal affection for because it echoed my feelings about "The Passion of the Christ" perfectly (the movie WAS a glorified snuff film) and the public's knee-jerk reaction to it ("well, that guilt tripped me back into religion").
While the show might not get as much attention as it used to, when they can still crank out episodes like those above as well as others, it makes me hope that Parker & Stone never grow up and keep picking apart worthy targets for another 200 episodes to come.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Clash of the Titans: The gods must be boring
I will state at the very beginning that it has been decades since I watched the original Clash of the Titans. I vaguely remembering the stiffness of Harry Hamlin's acting and creepiness of the Medusa. But, the memories are so vague, that I was able to judge the new Clash on its own merits. Unfortunately, even when compared against absolutely nothing, Clash of the Titans still fails on almost all accounts.
Clash follows the adventures of Perseus, a demigod who was the result of a late night bedding between Zeus and a mortal woman. Cast at sea at birth by his angry human father, Perseus is found by a fisherman who raises him. The fisherman and his family are later killed by Hades as a result of collateral damage when Hades attacks a town who rebelled against the gods. Perseus vows vengeance against Hades and is told that, in order to defeat, he must first defeat the Kraken, a deadly sea creature that Hades vows to let loose upon the town in 10 days because of their insolence. Perseus now has to gather the tools he will need to defeat both the Kraken as well as Hades.
Unfortunately, I managed to make the movie more exciting than it was. There was not one single moment in the film that I was ever engaged or caught up in the story. The action scenes were just set pieces with anonymous characters whose names I couldn't remember 5 minutes after the film ended. One of the biggest reasons is that the character of Perseus is barely drawn. All of the opening scenes are rushed and we don't really know or care about the character or his motivations. And Sam Worthington (a robotic actor who somehow is suddenly popping up in major movies including Avatar and Terminator: Salvation (I said they were "major" not necessarily "good") does little to bring any charm or charisma to a character that we should be rooting for. As a result, he comes across than little more than an computer effect in a giant video game of a movie.
In addition, the movie appears to be only half-way thought out. Like the original story, Andromeda (a princess of the town under attack) is told that she must be sacrificed in order for the town to avoid destruction. However, unlike the original movie where Perseus was in love with Andromeda (thereby providing his motivation), here Perseus has one brief scene with her and his motivation for destroying the town has nothing at all to do with her. Thus, since the main character care little for her, there's no reason at all for us to care about her fate as well. To show how trivial that subplot is, they could have dropped it entirely and it would not have affected the story in the least.
What is really sad is that there are some good actors in this movie including Liam Neeson as Zeus and Ralph Fiennes as Hades. The last time these two actors worked together was in Schindler's List and their one scene in that movie together had more tension, drama and suspense than all of Clash combined. But the fault didn't lie with the actors, it lay with the script. For Zeus, his actions were contrary at best. At times he was dismissive of Perseus and refused to step while, at other times, he became a concerned father who wanted to protect his son. The switches in attitude were based on the story demands and no actual true character motivation. Likewise, Hades had none of the creepiness or danger that Fiennes is more than capable of bringing to his roles. They tried their best but the direction and script completely let them down.
What finally did it for me was the conclusion. Without going into too great of detail, the final battle between Hades and Perseus was the single most anti-climatic battle I have ever seen in a movie. Throughout the movie, Perseus made it clear that he was gunning for Hades and, when he did finally face him, the battle was over in a matter of seconds. It is the equivalent of, in Return of the Jedi, Luke faces Darth Vader and the Emperor at the end and, instead of the light saber duel, Luke instead quickly shoots both of them dead with one shot each. Instead, they treated the Kraken as the "big" battle and even that was over in a matter of moments upon Perseus' arrival. By making the big battles so quick and perfunctory, it reflects the filmmaker's attitude towards the story and lack of general knowledge of packing and story telling.
As I mentioned, I only vaguely remember the original Clash of the Titans so that wasn't the movie I was comparing it to. Instead, the Greek mythology film I had in my head while watching the remake was Walt Disney's Hercules. And that is the Greek myth retelling that I will gladly and happily go back to in the future.
GRADE: D-
Clash follows the adventures of Perseus, a demigod who was the result of a late night bedding between Zeus and a mortal woman. Cast at sea at birth by his angry human father, Perseus is found by a fisherman who raises him. The fisherman and his family are later killed by Hades as a result of collateral damage when Hades attacks a town who rebelled against the gods. Perseus vows vengeance against Hades and is told that, in order to defeat, he must first defeat the Kraken, a deadly sea creature that Hades vows to let loose upon the town in 10 days because of their insolence. Perseus now has to gather the tools he will need to defeat both the Kraken as well as Hades.
Unfortunately, I managed to make the movie more exciting than it was. There was not one single moment in the film that I was ever engaged or caught up in the story. The action scenes were just set pieces with anonymous characters whose names I couldn't remember 5 minutes after the film ended. One of the biggest reasons is that the character of Perseus is barely drawn. All of the opening scenes are rushed and we don't really know or care about the character or his motivations. And Sam Worthington (a robotic actor who somehow is suddenly popping up in major movies including Avatar and Terminator: Salvation (I said they were "major" not necessarily "good") does little to bring any charm or charisma to a character that we should be rooting for. As a result, he comes across than little more than an computer effect in a giant video game of a movie.
In addition, the movie appears to be only half-way thought out. Like the original story, Andromeda (a princess of the town under attack) is told that she must be sacrificed in order for the town to avoid destruction. However, unlike the original movie where Perseus was in love with Andromeda (thereby providing his motivation), here Perseus has one brief scene with her and his motivation for destroying the town has nothing at all to do with her. Thus, since the main character care little for her, there's no reason at all for us to care about her fate as well. To show how trivial that subplot is, they could have dropped it entirely and it would not have affected the story in the least.
What is really sad is that there are some good actors in this movie including Liam Neeson as Zeus and Ralph Fiennes as Hades. The last time these two actors worked together was in Schindler's List and their one scene in that movie together had more tension, drama and suspense than all of Clash combined. But the fault didn't lie with the actors, it lay with the script. For Zeus, his actions were contrary at best. At times he was dismissive of Perseus and refused to step while, at other times, he became a concerned father who wanted to protect his son. The switches in attitude were based on the story demands and no actual true character motivation. Likewise, Hades had none of the creepiness or danger that Fiennes is more than capable of bringing to his roles. They tried their best but the direction and script completely let them down.
What finally did it for me was the conclusion. Without going into too great of detail, the final battle between Hades and Perseus was the single most anti-climatic battle I have ever seen in a movie. Throughout the movie, Perseus made it clear that he was gunning for Hades and, when he did finally face him, the battle was over in a matter of seconds. It is the equivalent of, in Return of the Jedi, Luke faces Darth Vader and the Emperor at the end and, instead of the light saber duel, Luke instead quickly shoots both of them dead with one shot each. Instead, they treated the Kraken as the "big" battle and even that was over in a matter of moments upon Perseus' arrival. By making the big battles so quick and perfunctory, it reflects the filmmaker's attitude towards the story and lack of general knowledge of packing and story telling.
As I mentioned, I only vaguely remember the original Clash of the Titans so that wasn't the movie I was comparing it to. Instead, the Greek mythology film I had in my head while watching the remake was Walt Disney's Hercules. And that is the Greek myth retelling that I will gladly and happily go back to in the future.
GRADE: D-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)