Mirror Mirror (2012)
Grade: B
Starring: Julia Roberts, Lily Collins, Armie Hammer, Nathan Lane, Robert Emms, and Mare Winningham, with Jordan Prentice, Mark Povinelli, Joe Gnoffo, Danny Woodburn, Sebastian Saraceno, Martin Klebba and Ronald Lee Clark as the Dwarves
PREMISE: When she finds out her stepmother, the queen, has been letting her once-joyous kingdom suffer and starve while tending exclusively to her own "needs", sheltered princess Snow White breaks out of the castle and seeks allies for a rebellion.
RATED PG (contains action, some scary moments/images, and some rude humor)
Not gonna lie: I felt really dumb buying a ticket to see Mirror, Mirror.
After all, I’m a twenty-four year old guy, going alone--in the middle of the day--to see a new adaptation of the classic Snow White fairy tale the day it came out. And it isn’t even the gothic horror action spectacle (Snow White and the Huntsman) expected to thrill mature audiences this summer; it’s the PG-rated one that’s supposed to be a lot more family friendly and reminiscent of the classic Disney cartoon. Nonetheless, to be an effective movie critic, I need to see the big-name movies that are making a splash-at or before the time they’re making that splash-so, for this weekend, it came down to two new-release titles: Mirror Mirror and Wrath of the Titans. Yes, the man in me really wanted to make it Wrath, to see Sam Worthington do the Sam Worthington thing—hack up computerized baddies in front of a green screen while shouting and squinting into the distance—so, I thought “I might as well get the unpleasant business out of the way”, thinking I’d save the real treat for tomorrow, after work.
Surprise! Wrath has big shoes to fill, as Mirror Mirror proved to be a great time at the movies, its nearly-perfect combination of action, romance and humor effectively surpassing the realm of standard kiddie fair, and landing in the all-ages-welcome entertainment section.
Plot: Unfortunately for Snow White, her queen mother died giving birth to her, and her beloved father later rode off into the woods and was never seen or heard from again. As a young woman (Lily Collins), she’s all but locked in a secluded tower in the castle of her stepmother (Julia Roberts), a beautiful queen and a powerful enchantress. It is by sheer chance that Snow-on a forbidden excursion outside the castle to see for herself the impoverished condition of the commoners-meets Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer) heir to the throne of a wealthy neighboring kingdom. At the time she meets him, however, he’s only in his underwear, himself and his squire (Robert Emms) having been robbed and entrapped by seven peculiar men who live in a secret lair nearby. Learning that Snow snuck out-and of her and the handsome Alcott’s immediate mutual attraction-the queen tells her right hand (Nathan Lane) to either execute her or leave her in the woods to be devoured by the fabled Beast that lives there. He leaves her, and she is saved by those seven men who attacked the prince—dwarves who frequently masquerade as bandits that rob the queen's caravans. While the queen schemes to win over the prince (including trying to slip him a love potion that will make him want to marry her) Snow moves in with the dwarves, learns stealth and swordfighting, convinces the dwarves to give their spoils to the poor, and and enlists their help in an attempt to take back her throne, and, if she can manage it, the prince.
What Works?The key performances are all first rate, with the actors fearlessly embracing their classic-type roles. Roberts is wicked fun (pun intended) as the evil queen, Collins (daughter of singer Phil Collins) is truly winning as the sweetheart-turned-adventurer Snow White, and Lane and Hammer compete furiously for the honor of best comedic performance—Lane’s a wry cut-up and Hammer is a fearless hoot, making the most of a subplot where a wrongly-concocted love potion addles his brains. Hammer and Collins also have a prolonged half-serious/half-flirtatious swordfight that harkens back to a similar scene in The Mask of Zorro, what with romantic sparks flying even as metal clashes and punches are thrown. And the dwarves (who, thankfully, are given names and types that are at least more interesting than Grumpy, Dopey, Sleepy, etc…) bring an irreverence to their group bickering that recalls Shrek at its wittiest—they have actual discernible personalities, too. And there's a late celebrity cameo that almost had me cheering.
I already referenced one of the films this movie brought to mind (Shrek); others that come to mind include Tangled and Enchanted. Realizing (rightly) that today’s audiences are going to be easily bored by something that’s either too-low-I.Q.-kiddie in its content and humor, or overly-treacly in its romantic material (a la Twilight), it opts for a mix of endearing earnestness and adventurous razzle-dazzle, and it works perfectly. The banter is amusing, the feelings are believable, the adventure is exciting, and more than one late curveball is thrown just to throw off people like me, who “know exactly where this is going”. The more serious subjects (the townspeople’s desperate living conditions, the queen’s evil schemes) hit home, but, of course, in a good old-fashioned Disney adventure like this, good will prevail (sorry if you expected otherwise and I just spoiled the movie for you).
Ultimately, the pace is quick, the laughs are plentiful, and the performances colorful.
What Doesn’t Work?A few of the sillier touches, such as the queen’s turning Lane into a cockroach and some pre-Final Credits titles that tell how each of the dwarves went on to fare (in very wink-wink fashion), are a little unnecessary and pointless, but most of Mirror Mirror is surprisingly first-rate entertainment. Not one scene really drags.
Content:It’s a PG-rated Disney film. As with Shrek, and some other recent animated films that strive to be Whole Family-Friendly in order to make a louder bang at the box office, some of the humor is a little naughty, but most of it won’t register with kids younger than 13 anyway (and one of the running gags is actually pretty hysterical). There are a few scary moments in the woods (as in the classic cartoon Snow White), and some scary effects, but this is ultimately an inoffensive, family-friendly picture.
Bottom Line (I Promise):Funny, feisty, and full of life, Mirror Mirror is an entertainment that will delight the kid in all of us, and sets the bar high for best Snow White adaptation of the year (bring it on, Snow White and the Huntsman).
Mirror Mirror. Directed by Tarsem Singh. Based on a Story by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm; Written for the Screen by Melissa Wallack and Jason Keller. Length: 106 minutes. Rated PG
Friday, March 30, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
THE HUNGER GAMES
The Hunger Games (2012)
Grade: B+
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Lenny Kravitz, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland, Alexander Ludwig, Amandla Stenberg, Willow Shields, Isabelle Fuhrman, and Toby Jones
PREMISE: A girl in a futuristic society takes her sister's place in The Hunger Games, thus landing herself in a nationally-televised twenty-four-person fight to the death in which the winner earns a lifetime of wealth and fame.
RATED PG-13 for blood and violence, intense emotional content, and some disturbing images
First there was Harry Potter.
Then there was Twilight.
Now comes The Hunger Games.
Just as one teen SUPERfad (Twilight) appears to be stumbling its way out of the public consciousness (only one lousy movie left!), here comes another to take its place. This effective adaptation of the fast, furious novel about a dystopian society, by author Suzanne Collins, rolls into theaters with a huge amount of anticipation, and plenty to draw in even those who haven't read the book. There's a central love triangle that will both divide and capture audiences, tons of action, plus humor, heroism, sacrifice and political intrigue; this story has already won the hearts and minds of millions, including me. I read the first book back in May, read the two sequels within a few months, and then waited eagerly for the film's release. Of course, I did so with some trepidation: my devotion to the Harry Potter saga (and its very lengthy, very detailed books) led me to be extremely harsh and critical of each of the eight movies, and, having read Hunger Games three times, I had a feeling I'd approach Gary Ross' film the same way. Thankfully, my delight at seeing these familiar characters, places, and events depicted onscreen-plus a generally-quick pace-swept me away, just as the best of the Potter films did, so I quickly found myself able to sit back and enjoy the ride.
Plot: Being selected to participate in the Hunger Games is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence, but gutsy teenager Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) doesn't hesitate to volunteer to take her sister's place when the 12-year-old (Willow Shields) is initially chosen instead of her. The Games--a cruel, utilitarian futuristic government's way of essentially Giving the Finger to the twelve districts that once tried to rebel and overthrow it--features one boy and one girl from each district, between the ages of 12 and 18, tosses them into a random arena, and lets them have at it. Twenty-three will die. One will win: a life of fame, fortune, and relative ease being the reward. After volunteering, Katniss is whisked off to the Capitol-the country's central, governing city-where she sees the best (incredible food, plush hotel suites, easy-to-use futuristic technology) and the worst (Games contestants are gussied up for nationally-televised interviews, a la American Idol, and the audience votes on their likelihood of survival) it has to offer. But then the Games start, and Katniss is up against 23 others, with limited supplies, limited food, a blood-thirsty audience, and no potential allies, except, possibly, for the brave, kindhearted boy from her own District (Josh Hutcherson). Katniss was known for her hunting prowess back home, but even if she doubts herself against tough competition, she must stick to her guns, because she promised her sister she'd really try to win and make it back.
What Works?
There's so much plot-and so many characters-that I barely touched on half of it in my plot synopsis, but, as I mentioned, the movie is well-paced; it moves quickly from the start. But even non-readers will have enough time to understand who's who. There's Katniss' chirpy, highly-made-up escort (Elizabeth Banks); the drunken, surly mentor (Woody Harrelson) who once won a Hunger Games; her creative, mellow stylist (Lenny Kravitz), and, most importantly, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Katniss' hunting partner and best friend back home, who could very likely be her boyfriend if she survives the Games. And all the most important fellow tributes get at least mildly-lengthy interludes--Cato (Alexander Ludwig), the hulking, sadistic boy who has trained his entire life for the Games; Clove (Isabelle Fuhrman), his slinky and barely-less-bloodthirsty pal; Rue (Amandla Stenberg), the sweet-natured cutie-pie with whom Katniss forms a temporary alliance, and, of course, Peeta, who Katniss doesn't technically know, but who once gave her help in a time of need.
The performances aren't supposed to be flashy, so they aren't, but the bookaholics in the audience like me are going to be in spasms of delight whether the acting bites (which it doesn't) or not. Lawrence is pitch-perfect as Katniss--she's likeable, withdrawn but expressive, convincingly nimble in the action sequences, and a powerful emoter. Hutcherson was born to play Peeta--he fits the part like a glove. Hemsworth is good, but we're only getting a taste of him here; he'll be much more important in future installments. Ludwig is a nasty meathead who gets a surprisingly-poignant monologue late in the running, Fuhrman gets to chew on some of the script's most deliciously-nasty lines (plus getting to whale on Lawrence during a bravura mano-a-mano showdown), Stenberg and Shields are both adorable and emotionally-affecting, and all the adults (Harrelson, Banks, Kravitz) fill their already-iconic parts well. Other standouts include a cheeky Stanley Tucci as the winking, blue-haired, Seacrest-esque Games' host, Wes Bentley as the program director, and an eerily-sinister Donald Sutherland as Panem's dark-hearted president.
What romance there needs to be registers convincingly enough, there are a few light moments to break up the tension, the action is engaging, and Ross shows that he's really done his homework as a director: not only does he lend a kind of visual poetry to scenes of characters dreaming, daydreaming, or even dying, but he also gives us a number of behind-the-scenes sequences of the program's directors and producers that flesh out some of the supporting characters and will come as a great surprise even to those who read the book repeatedly--they weren't possible in the text due to the book's first-person viewpoint.
What Doesn't Work?
Despite being nearly two-and-a-quarter hours long, Games has to hit the ground running, and does; so, while a great deal is included, nearly all of it could have used a little more time (same problem Harry Potter always had). The romance that develops between Katniss and Peeta isn't given nearly enough time to really make an impact (taking some of the lingering emotional punch out of the ending); ditto for Katniss/Rue's alliance, and it's a little funny to see Hemsworth get so little screen time after the marketing campaign boasted of his prominence as one of the "Big Three". And the action--well, a lot of people were surprised that the bloody, straightforward content that fills Games was being made into a movie with a PG-13 rating. Having seen the movie, I think it was the right call, even if the action is a little disorienting as presented. The fast-cut editing and shaky-cam filming recall the Bourne series in that it's both effective in portraying how it would probably really appear--especially when a regular girl is thrust into a whirlwind of such relentless carnage--and frustrating (I wish the camera were a bit more relaxed).
Content:
I actually just hit on it: the violence is bloody but rarely directly-shown. However, you do see a young girl get hit with a spear and then die, all in intimate close-up, as was the case in the book. You also get a lot of looks at the bodies, and faces, of people who are unmistakably dead, even if they're not particularly bloody. This is not a movie for younger kids. Also similar to the book, most of the movie's frames are suffused with barely-restrained emotion that boils over at points--many audience members will cry. There's no unnecessary sexual content and no cursing, but the majority of this movie is very intense.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
A very solid adaptation of a spectacular book, Gary Ross's The Hunger Games is no silly entertainment--it's on the level of the best of the Harry Potters. In fact, it'll be way too short for many people, especially lovers of the book like me. Consider this one recommended: just bring tissues.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Based on the novel by Suzanne Collins
Directed by Gary Ross
Written by Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, and Billy Ray
Rated PG-13
Length: 142 minutes
Grade: B+
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Lenny Kravitz, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland, Alexander Ludwig, Amandla Stenberg, Willow Shields, Isabelle Fuhrman, and Toby Jones
PREMISE: A girl in a futuristic society takes her sister's place in The Hunger Games, thus landing herself in a nationally-televised twenty-four-person fight to the death in which the winner earns a lifetime of wealth and fame.
RATED PG-13 for blood and violence, intense emotional content, and some disturbing images
First there was Harry Potter.
Then there was Twilight.
Now comes The Hunger Games.
Just as one teen SUPERfad (Twilight) appears to be stumbling its way out of the public consciousness (only one lousy movie left!), here comes another to take its place. This effective adaptation of the fast, furious novel about a dystopian society, by author Suzanne Collins, rolls into theaters with a huge amount of anticipation, and plenty to draw in even those who haven't read the book. There's a central love triangle that will both divide and capture audiences, tons of action, plus humor, heroism, sacrifice and political intrigue; this story has already won the hearts and minds of millions, including me. I read the first book back in May, read the two sequels within a few months, and then waited eagerly for the film's release. Of course, I did so with some trepidation: my devotion to the Harry Potter saga (and its very lengthy, very detailed books) led me to be extremely harsh and critical of each of the eight movies, and, having read Hunger Games three times, I had a feeling I'd approach Gary Ross' film the same way. Thankfully, my delight at seeing these familiar characters, places, and events depicted onscreen-plus a generally-quick pace-swept me away, just as the best of the Potter films did, so I quickly found myself able to sit back and enjoy the ride.
Plot: Being selected to participate in the Hunger Games is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence, but gutsy teenager Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) doesn't hesitate to volunteer to take her sister's place when the 12-year-old (Willow Shields) is initially chosen instead of her. The Games--a cruel, utilitarian futuristic government's way of essentially Giving the Finger to the twelve districts that once tried to rebel and overthrow it--features one boy and one girl from each district, between the ages of 12 and 18, tosses them into a random arena, and lets them have at it. Twenty-three will die. One will win: a life of fame, fortune, and relative ease being the reward. After volunteering, Katniss is whisked off to the Capitol-the country's central, governing city-where she sees the best (incredible food, plush hotel suites, easy-to-use futuristic technology) and the worst (Games contestants are gussied up for nationally-televised interviews, a la American Idol, and the audience votes on their likelihood of survival) it has to offer. But then the Games start, and Katniss is up against 23 others, with limited supplies, limited food, a blood-thirsty audience, and no potential allies, except, possibly, for the brave, kindhearted boy from her own District (Josh Hutcherson). Katniss was known for her hunting prowess back home, but even if she doubts herself against tough competition, she must stick to her guns, because she promised her sister she'd really try to win and make it back.
What Works?
There's so much plot-and so many characters-that I barely touched on half of it in my plot synopsis, but, as I mentioned, the movie is well-paced; it moves quickly from the start. But even non-readers will have enough time to understand who's who. There's Katniss' chirpy, highly-made-up escort (Elizabeth Banks); the drunken, surly mentor (Woody Harrelson) who once won a Hunger Games; her creative, mellow stylist (Lenny Kravitz), and, most importantly, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Katniss' hunting partner and best friend back home, who could very likely be her boyfriend if she survives the Games. And all the most important fellow tributes get at least mildly-lengthy interludes--Cato (Alexander Ludwig), the hulking, sadistic boy who has trained his entire life for the Games; Clove (Isabelle Fuhrman), his slinky and barely-less-bloodthirsty pal; Rue (Amandla Stenberg), the sweet-natured cutie-pie with whom Katniss forms a temporary alliance, and, of course, Peeta, who Katniss doesn't technically know, but who once gave her help in a time of need.
The performances aren't supposed to be flashy, so they aren't, but the bookaholics in the audience like me are going to be in spasms of delight whether the acting bites (which it doesn't) or not. Lawrence is pitch-perfect as Katniss--she's likeable, withdrawn but expressive, convincingly nimble in the action sequences, and a powerful emoter. Hutcherson was born to play Peeta--he fits the part like a glove. Hemsworth is good, but we're only getting a taste of him here; he'll be much more important in future installments. Ludwig is a nasty meathead who gets a surprisingly-poignant monologue late in the running, Fuhrman gets to chew on some of the script's most deliciously-nasty lines (plus getting to whale on Lawrence during a bravura mano-a-mano showdown), Stenberg and Shields are both adorable and emotionally-affecting, and all the adults (Harrelson, Banks, Kravitz) fill their already-iconic parts well. Other standouts include a cheeky Stanley Tucci as the winking, blue-haired, Seacrest-esque Games' host, Wes Bentley as the program director, and an eerily-sinister Donald Sutherland as Panem's dark-hearted president.
What romance there needs to be registers convincingly enough, there are a few light moments to break up the tension, the action is engaging, and Ross shows that he's really done his homework as a director: not only does he lend a kind of visual poetry to scenes of characters dreaming, daydreaming, or even dying, but he also gives us a number of behind-the-scenes sequences of the program's directors and producers that flesh out some of the supporting characters and will come as a great surprise even to those who read the book repeatedly--they weren't possible in the text due to the book's first-person viewpoint.
What Doesn't Work?
Despite being nearly two-and-a-quarter hours long, Games has to hit the ground running, and does; so, while a great deal is included, nearly all of it could have used a little more time (same problem Harry Potter always had). The romance that develops between Katniss and Peeta isn't given nearly enough time to really make an impact (taking some of the lingering emotional punch out of the ending); ditto for Katniss/Rue's alliance, and it's a little funny to see Hemsworth get so little screen time after the marketing campaign boasted of his prominence as one of the "Big Three". And the action--well, a lot of people were surprised that the bloody, straightforward content that fills Games was being made into a movie with a PG-13 rating. Having seen the movie, I think it was the right call, even if the action is a little disorienting as presented. The fast-cut editing and shaky-cam filming recall the Bourne series in that it's both effective in portraying how it would probably really appear--especially when a regular girl is thrust into a whirlwind of such relentless carnage--and frustrating (I wish the camera were a bit more relaxed).
Content:
I actually just hit on it: the violence is bloody but rarely directly-shown. However, you do see a young girl get hit with a spear and then die, all in intimate close-up, as was the case in the book. You also get a lot of looks at the bodies, and faces, of people who are unmistakably dead, even if they're not particularly bloody. This is not a movie for younger kids. Also similar to the book, most of the movie's frames are suffused with barely-restrained emotion that boils over at points--many audience members will cry. There's no unnecessary sexual content and no cursing, but the majority of this movie is very intense.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
A very solid adaptation of a spectacular book, Gary Ross's The Hunger Games is no silly entertainment--it's on the level of the best of the Harry Potters. In fact, it'll be way too short for many people, especially lovers of the book like me. Consider this one recommended: just bring tissues.
The Hunger Games (2012)
Based on the novel by Suzanne Collins
Directed by Gary Ross
Written by Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, and Billy Ray
Rated PG-13
Length: 142 minutes
Thursday, March 22, 2012
PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
Grade: B
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Richard Coyle, Toby Kebbell, and Ronald Pickup
PREMISE: When the youngest son of the Persian Emperor is framed for the king's sudden murder, he goes on the run hoping to find a way to prove his innocence, all the while in possession of an ancient artifact with the power to destroy the world.
Rated PG-13 for action violence and some disturbing images
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, is quite the spectacle. Swords clash, arrows fly, horses gallop, fires blaze, men of royalty strut, ostraches race, women's eyes gleam, and the fate of all mankind hangs in the balance. Based on a popular video game series that originated in 2003, Prince delivers all the goods of a video-game-turned-movie in an engaging manner, charging through murders, mythology, and surprise twists while maintaining its sense of fun. While it delivers all those things we expect from our action adventure films-swashbuckling heroes, dastardly villains, romantic intrigue, and action upon action upon action-it does it with a greater sense of purpose, more conviction that something like the recent, phoned-in Three Musketeers.
Plot: Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) isn't a prince by birth, so he will never get a real share of the throne of his adopted father, the Persian Emperor (Ronald Pickup). An orphan who impressed the old man with his guile and street smarts one day in the market, Dastan is on a longer leash than his actual prince brothers, Tus (Richard Coyle) and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell), and wins the family's approval by leading a successful campaign to conquer the sacred city of Alamut. When Dastan presents his father with a pair of decorative robes found during the siege-given to him by the heir apparent, Tus-and the robes spontaneously burn and kill the king, he's forced to run for his life. He's aided in his escape by Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) of Alamut, who knows a little something about a bejeweled knife Dastan recoverd during the siege. The hilt of the knife is a curious glass case containing swirling sand, and, when the ruby on the end of the hilt is pressed, the holder can turn back time--even able to return a dead person to life. Dastan wants to use it to revive the king, but the princess would rather return it to its rightful place in a temple, not only because Dastan's uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley) seems to have his eye on it, but because the dagger is the key to an ancient power, given by the gods, that, when unlocked, can destroy the world.
What Works?
As is often the case with this sort of movie, the plot is complex, and sometimes difficult to understand, but Prince of Persia wastes little time with boring exposition. The action comes fast and frequent, with clever tactics and even cleverer stunts, and the humor-particularly in cocky banter between Dastan and Tamina-aids the film enormously in its non-violent stretches. The actors are all solid, with the engaging Gyllenhaal embracing the liveliness of the daredevil Dastan, Arterton nailing the banter but taking seriously the deep faith of the princess, Kingsley blustering as old baddies do, and Alfred Molina stealing a number of scenes as a peppy ostrich-racing merchant Dastan encounters on his travels. The special effects are suitable, and, while many of the film's final plot twists are predictable, you actually care enough about the characters to take them seriously. Compared to an empty-headed by-the-numbers project like The Three Musketeers, this movie is a gem of pacing and intrigue.
What Doesn't Work?
Okay, so, like I said, the plot can be confusing. Basically, there's a dagger, there are the gods, something about the dagger and the sand that can destroy the world--sometimes you just sort of revert to sitting and smiling and not asking questions, waiting for it to all unfold. Also, in a movie like this, the names are nigh impossible to pick up, and the will-they-or-won't-they romantic subplot sputters when overused. The key, as ever, with something like Prince of Persia is to not take it too seriously, and, when you don't, you're engaged by the spectacle onscreen.
Content:
Like Musketeers, Prince of Persia, being a Disney adventure film, is pretty clean. There's nary a cuss word, and, despite some revealing outfits (worn by women AND men), no real nudity or edgy sensual content. There are large-scale action sequences, sometimes containing sinister baddies with nasty weapons, and sometimes good guys bite the dust, but very little blood is spilt. But there are some creepy crawly snakes, and a few effects that could frighten younger viewers.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
Led by a likeable star trying something new, and moving along quickly with a high entertainment value, Prince of Persia has exactly the impact it was trying to, and that's a flat-out reward for a summer action flick like this.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
Based on the Video Game Series created by Jordan Mechner
Directed by Mike Newell
Written for the screen by Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, and Carlo Bernard
Rated PG-13
Length: 116 minutes
Grade: B
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Richard Coyle, Toby Kebbell, and Ronald Pickup
PREMISE: When the youngest son of the Persian Emperor is framed for the king's sudden murder, he goes on the run hoping to find a way to prove his innocence, all the while in possession of an ancient artifact with the power to destroy the world.
Rated PG-13 for action violence and some disturbing images
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, is quite the spectacle. Swords clash, arrows fly, horses gallop, fires blaze, men of royalty strut, ostraches race, women's eyes gleam, and the fate of all mankind hangs in the balance. Based on a popular video game series that originated in 2003, Prince delivers all the goods of a video-game-turned-movie in an engaging manner, charging through murders, mythology, and surprise twists while maintaining its sense of fun. While it delivers all those things we expect from our action adventure films-swashbuckling heroes, dastardly villains, romantic intrigue, and action upon action upon action-it does it with a greater sense of purpose, more conviction that something like the recent, phoned-in Three Musketeers.
Plot: Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) isn't a prince by birth, so he will never get a real share of the throne of his adopted father, the Persian Emperor (Ronald Pickup). An orphan who impressed the old man with his guile and street smarts one day in the market, Dastan is on a longer leash than his actual prince brothers, Tus (Richard Coyle) and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell), and wins the family's approval by leading a successful campaign to conquer the sacred city of Alamut. When Dastan presents his father with a pair of decorative robes found during the siege-given to him by the heir apparent, Tus-and the robes spontaneously burn and kill the king, he's forced to run for his life. He's aided in his escape by Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton) of Alamut, who knows a little something about a bejeweled knife Dastan recoverd during the siege. The hilt of the knife is a curious glass case containing swirling sand, and, when the ruby on the end of the hilt is pressed, the holder can turn back time--even able to return a dead person to life. Dastan wants to use it to revive the king, but the princess would rather return it to its rightful place in a temple, not only because Dastan's uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley) seems to have his eye on it, but because the dagger is the key to an ancient power, given by the gods, that, when unlocked, can destroy the world.
What Works?
As is often the case with this sort of movie, the plot is complex, and sometimes difficult to understand, but Prince of Persia wastes little time with boring exposition. The action comes fast and frequent, with clever tactics and even cleverer stunts, and the humor-particularly in cocky banter between Dastan and Tamina-aids the film enormously in its non-violent stretches. The actors are all solid, with the engaging Gyllenhaal embracing the liveliness of the daredevil Dastan, Arterton nailing the banter but taking seriously the deep faith of the princess, Kingsley blustering as old baddies do, and Alfred Molina stealing a number of scenes as a peppy ostrich-racing merchant Dastan encounters on his travels. The special effects are suitable, and, while many of the film's final plot twists are predictable, you actually care enough about the characters to take them seriously. Compared to an empty-headed by-the-numbers project like The Three Musketeers, this movie is a gem of pacing and intrigue.
What Doesn't Work?
Okay, so, like I said, the plot can be confusing. Basically, there's a dagger, there are the gods, something about the dagger and the sand that can destroy the world--sometimes you just sort of revert to sitting and smiling and not asking questions, waiting for it to all unfold. Also, in a movie like this, the names are nigh impossible to pick up, and the will-they-or-won't-they romantic subplot sputters when overused. The key, as ever, with something like Prince of Persia is to not take it too seriously, and, when you don't, you're engaged by the spectacle onscreen.
Content:
Like Musketeers, Prince of Persia, being a Disney adventure film, is pretty clean. There's nary a cuss word, and, despite some revealing outfits (worn by women AND men), no real nudity or edgy sensual content. There are large-scale action sequences, sometimes containing sinister baddies with nasty weapons, and sometimes good guys bite the dust, but very little blood is spilt. But there are some creepy crawly snakes, and a few effects that could frighten younger viewers.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
Led by a likeable star trying something new, and moving along quickly with a high entertainment value, Prince of Persia has exactly the impact it was trying to, and that's a flat-out reward for a summer action flick like this.
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
Based on the Video Game Series created by Jordan Mechner
Directed by Mike Newell
Written for the screen by Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, and Carlo Bernard
Rated PG-13
Length: 116 minutes
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
THE NEXT THREE DAYS
The Next Three Days (2010)
Grade: B
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Lennie James, Bryan Dennehy, Ty Simpkins and Olivia Wilde
PREMISE: A man decides to spring his wife from jail before she goes to prison for life for a murder he believes she didn’t commit.
RATED PG-13 for language, some violence, and intense emotional content
Ten years ago, Russell Crowe was the most wanted man on the planet. Ruggedly handsome, intense, capable of carrying a film, convincing as both a romantic lead and an action star, admired by women for his intelligence and charm and admired by men for his toughness—he also had an awe-inspiring streak of big-time, popular, award-nominated films (from 1999-2001 The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), won an Oscar, and was all over, and then…I’m not really sure what happened. The bad press after he threw a telephone at a hotel clerk in frustration? A holier-than-thou attitude when it came to choosing scripts? Too many off-beat scripts? Went out of style? Coasting on his reputation? His last movie of note was 2010’s overblown Robin Hood—his last big Russell Crowe movie: 2005’s Cinderella Man.
The Next Three Days, a long but decidedly white-knuckle thriller with a few great surprises up its sleeve, was the first movie in a long time that made me sit up in my seat and go: man, Russell Crowe is awesome! Some of his films, like Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, are classics that will never go out of style, but those did come out after 10 years ago. Finally, here’s something current to get excited about.
Plot: The happy marriage of John (Crowe) and Lara (Elizabeth Banks) Brennan becomes a doomed marriage when Lara is one day arrested for murder. The victim was her boss, a woman she had a notorious feud with and with whom she was seen arguing earlier that day. A bloodstain is also found on the coat she was wearing the night of the murder. But not for a second does John, a community college teacher, believe she did it. Struggling to raise his young, increasingly-distant son Luke (Ty Simpkins) and to stay optimistic, the news that Lara lost her appeal and is going to prison for life becomes too much for John. With some advice from the author of a book on prison breaks (Liam Neeson, in an effective cameo), he begins drafting an extensive plan to break Lara out and run away--with everything from the amount of money he’ll need, to the legal papers he’ll need for fake identities, to possible destinations and the amount of time it will take local authorities to cut off modes of travel. With Elizabeth getting stressed and sad-eyed, and one escape plan failing, John knows he’ll only have one chance before he loses any hope of a happy future with his wife forever.
What Works?
Crowe never was the loudest, most explosive actor, but he’s always been watchable, an intense, intelligent screen presence, and he does that again in nearly every scene of this taut thriller. Unshaven and wild-eyed, he’s easily-convincing as a man on the edge, a man capable of making some devastating decisions. Thankfully, writer/director Paul Haggis avoids letting the character fall into an unlikable trap by keeping his relationship with the mother of a friend of his son’s (the gorgeous Olivia Wilde) brief and strictly platonic. In the film’s other key role, Banks is effective as the increasingly weary Lara, winning your sympathy even while you’re not sure of her guilt/innocence in the key case. You do feel her pain, though, when her son begins to shun and ignore her because of his confusion and shame.
Other than the acting, the movie picks up once the primary caper begins, and it doesn’t let up, keeping you glued to your seat and your television. The plan is dense but not implausibly so, and a few big curveballs are handled with impressive verve by Haggis’ screenplay. In fact, this is probably the most original thriller I’ve seen in a while; I gave some delighted exclamations as the film went on. The score is effective, and the cross-cutting scenes of John and Lara trying to escape while the police strive to catch them are well-edited and always interesting.
What Doesn’t Work?
Most of the central 90 minutes are superb, winning your attention without fail, but the movie struggles to keep your interest early on—even once John begins taking steps to carrying out the central caper. It still moves a little slowly (and the movie’s nearly two hours and fifteen minutes total). Days also struggles to end, as though the crew had a hard time letting go. And the movie, while clearly not wanting to be boring, stumbles over a few odd twists (a faux cliffhanger beginning, a possible big twist) that build some intrigue but ultimately seem unnecessary and forced.
(Also, and this can’t really count against the movie, but that Neeson is only in one scene is a shame. Since he’s got a similar appeal to Crowe-physically impressive, fiercely-intelligent, capably intense-and is the hotter star right now, I would have loved to have seen him share more screen time with Russell, possibly working together as full-on costars. Just sayin’.)
Content:
Pretty clean for an adult thriller. There are a few moderately-bloody flashbacks to the key murder, one scene of gun violence, a few cusswords and some sexuality, but most of this movie’s intensity comes from just that: intensity.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
A taut, stomach-crunching thriller that will genuinely surprise you at parts, The Next Three Days struggles to get off the ground but soars in its best moments. Oh, and its star, the former Maximus Decimus Murridius, is pretty darn good.
The Next Three Days (2010)
Written and Directed by Paul Haggis
Rated PG-13
Length: 133 minutes
Grade: B
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Lennie James, Bryan Dennehy, Ty Simpkins and Olivia Wilde
PREMISE: A man decides to spring his wife from jail before she goes to prison for life for a murder he believes she didn’t commit.
RATED PG-13 for language, some violence, and intense emotional content
Ten years ago, Russell Crowe was the most wanted man on the planet. Ruggedly handsome, intense, capable of carrying a film, convincing as both a romantic lead and an action star, admired by women for his intelligence and charm and admired by men for his toughness—he also had an awe-inspiring streak of big-time, popular, award-nominated films (from 1999-2001 The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), won an Oscar, and was all over, and then…I’m not really sure what happened. The bad press after he threw a telephone at a hotel clerk in frustration? A holier-than-thou attitude when it came to choosing scripts? Too many off-beat scripts? Went out of style? Coasting on his reputation? His last movie of note was 2010’s overblown Robin Hood—his last big Russell Crowe movie: 2005’s Cinderella Man.
The Next Three Days, a long but decidedly white-knuckle thriller with a few great surprises up its sleeve, was the first movie in a long time that made me sit up in my seat and go: man, Russell Crowe is awesome! Some of his films, like Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, are classics that will never go out of style, but those did come out after 10 years ago. Finally, here’s something current to get excited about.
Plot: The happy marriage of John (Crowe) and Lara (Elizabeth Banks) Brennan becomes a doomed marriage when Lara is one day arrested for murder. The victim was her boss, a woman she had a notorious feud with and with whom she was seen arguing earlier that day. A bloodstain is also found on the coat she was wearing the night of the murder. But not for a second does John, a community college teacher, believe she did it. Struggling to raise his young, increasingly-distant son Luke (Ty Simpkins) and to stay optimistic, the news that Lara lost her appeal and is going to prison for life becomes too much for John. With some advice from the author of a book on prison breaks (Liam Neeson, in an effective cameo), he begins drafting an extensive plan to break Lara out and run away--with everything from the amount of money he’ll need, to the legal papers he’ll need for fake identities, to possible destinations and the amount of time it will take local authorities to cut off modes of travel. With Elizabeth getting stressed and sad-eyed, and one escape plan failing, John knows he’ll only have one chance before he loses any hope of a happy future with his wife forever.
What Works?
Crowe never was the loudest, most explosive actor, but he’s always been watchable, an intense, intelligent screen presence, and he does that again in nearly every scene of this taut thriller. Unshaven and wild-eyed, he’s easily-convincing as a man on the edge, a man capable of making some devastating decisions. Thankfully, writer/director Paul Haggis avoids letting the character fall into an unlikable trap by keeping his relationship with the mother of a friend of his son’s (the gorgeous Olivia Wilde) brief and strictly platonic. In the film’s other key role, Banks is effective as the increasingly weary Lara, winning your sympathy even while you’re not sure of her guilt/innocence in the key case. You do feel her pain, though, when her son begins to shun and ignore her because of his confusion and shame.
Other than the acting, the movie picks up once the primary caper begins, and it doesn’t let up, keeping you glued to your seat and your television. The plan is dense but not implausibly so, and a few big curveballs are handled with impressive verve by Haggis’ screenplay. In fact, this is probably the most original thriller I’ve seen in a while; I gave some delighted exclamations as the film went on. The score is effective, and the cross-cutting scenes of John and Lara trying to escape while the police strive to catch them are well-edited and always interesting.
What Doesn’t Work?
Most of the central 90 minutes are superb, winning your attention without fail, but the movie struggles to keep your interest early on—even once John begins taking steps to carrying out the central caper. It still moves a little slowly (and the movie’s nearly two hours and fifteen minutes total). Days also struggles to end, as though the crew had a hard time letting go. And the movie, while clearly not wanting to be boring, stumbles over a few odd twists (a faux cliffhanger beginning, a possible big twist) that build some intrigue but ultimately seem unnecessary and forced.
(Also, and this can’t really count against the movie, but that Neeson is only in one scene is a shame. Since he’s got a similar appeal to Crowe-physically impressive, fiercely-intelligent, capably intense-and is the hotter star right now, I would have loved to have seen him share more screen time with Russell, possibly working together as full-on costars. Just sayin’.)
Content:
Pretty clean for an adult thriller. There are a few moderately-bloody flashbacks to the key murder, one scene of gun violence, a few cusswords and some sexuality, but most of this movie’s intensity comes from just that: intensity.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
A taut, stomach-crunching thriller that will genuinely surprise you at parts, The Next Three Days struggles to get off the ground but soars in its best moments. Oh, and its star, the former Maximus Decimus Murridius, is pretty darn good.
The Next Three Days (2010)
Written and Directed by Paul Haggis
Rated PG-13
Length: 133 minutes
Saturday, March 17, 2012
21 JUMP STREET
21 Jump Street (2012)
Grade: C+
Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Brie Larson, Dave Franco, Ice Cube, Rob Riggle, and Ellie Kemper
PREMISE: Two young cops pose as high school students in an effort to find the supplier of a newly-circulating, high-intensity drug.
RATED R for language (including graphic sexual references), strong sexual content, crude humor, drug material, and some bloody violence
Darn. I had modest expectations for 21 Jump Street, and, for much of the running time, it flirted with the upper edge of those expectations. Crude? Yes. Kinda dumb? Yes. Predictable? Pretty much. But I laughed my head off during much of the film, an updated version of the late-80s/early-90s TV show that made one Johnny Depp famous. The characters are engaging, the stereotypes a little more watered down than in most high school-related movies, and the pace quick--it's just a shame it all went downhill late in a painfully contrived last 30 minutes.
Plot: In high school, Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) had almost nothing in common, except the fact that neither went to their senior prom. Jenko, a strapping jock, because his grades were in the toilet; Schmidt-a stuttering nerd with braces-because the girl he asked turned him down. When they happen to meet again at police academy, both need help-Jenko with exams and paperwork, and Schmidt with physical endurance-so they team up to be each other's respective coaches. After a failed attempt to bust a local drug ring, they're sent to 21 Jump Street, where the brusque Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) decides to send them undercover as high school students. Their job: find the supplier of a dangerous new drug called HFS. However, the twosome are off almost immediately--getting their fake identities mixed up, the brainy Schmidt ends up in drama and other easy electives while Jenko gets into AP Chemistry and other high-end classes. But they soon find a local drug runner (Dave Franco), and in order to get in with him and his inner circle, including the comely Molly (Brie Larson), they throw parties, act up, and even try the drugs--but as the captain's patience wears thin, their lack of progress on the case fills their relationship with tension.
What Works?
Tatum is okay in his third (already) film of 2012, but this is clearly Hill's movie. The crude humor, the insatiable chatter, the rubbery malleability, even the undeniable chemistry with Larson's Molly--Hill's in his element. Franco is effectively amusing as the "new-age popular kid", a laid-back, artistic hippie, and Ice Cube's outrageously profane and surly dialogue gets big laughs. Basically, for 21 Jump Street, what works is the most important thing-this being a comedy-the humor. Two big set pieces, including Jenko and Schmidt's experiencing the after-effects of HFS, had me rolling in my seat, and the laughs keep coming from beginning to end.
What Doesn't Work?
Being a comedy aimed at mostly teens and young adults, it certainly has its moments of irredeemable crudeness, attempts at character development are predictable and only hit halfway home, and a few of the adults on hand (Rob Riggle as an enthusiastic gym teacher; Ellie Kemper as the AP Chem teacher who takes an immediate interest in the muscular Jenko) are forced to stoop to imbecilic levels to meet the material. Then that last half hour, when 21 Jump Street drops any pretense of being serious, or at least in possession of a serious-minded plot, it dissolves into a lot of cheesy jokes, obvious plot developments, and lame sight gags. I wasn't expecting a lot from 21 Jump Street, but everything before that ending gave me hope that it was, if not particularly original, at least a movie that fully delivered on its promise of being enjoyable. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be.
Content:
F-words abound, as do mentions about sex and sexual gestures. There's also drug material, though it's nothing particularly graphic or offensive--as I mentioned, the scene in which Schmidt and Jenko take HFS is used to comedic effect. The only scene of violence comes at the end, but violence isn't what makes this film rated R-it's the crudeness.
Bottom Line (I promise):
A crude but engaging comedy undone by a corny and amateur-ish third act, 21 Jump Street will undoubtedly please its target audience but was close to being even better.
21 Jump Street (2012)
Based on the television series created by Patrick Hasburgh and Stephen J. Cannell
Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller
Written by Michael Bacall
Rated R
Length: 109 minutes
Grade: C+
Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Brie Larson, Dave Franco, Ice Cube, Rob Riggle, and Ellie Kemper
PREMISE: Two young cops pose as high school students in an effort to find the supplier of a newly-circulating, high-intensity drug.
RATED R for language (including graphic sexual references), strong sexual content, crude humor, drug material, and some bloody violence
Darn. I had modest expectations for 21 Jump Street, and, for much of the running time, it flirted with the upper edge of those expectations. Crude? Yes. Kinda dumb? Yes. Predictable? Pretty much. But I laughed my head off during much of the film, an updated version of the late-80s/early-90s TV show that made one Johnny Depp famous. The characters are engaging, the stereotypes a little more watered down than in most high school-related movies, and the pace quick--it's just a shame it all went downhill late in a painfully contrived last 30 minutes.
Plot: In high school, Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) had almost nothing in common, except the fact that neither went to their senior prom. Jenko, a strapping jock, because his grades were in the toilet; Schmidt-a stuttering nerd with braces-because the girl he asked turned him down. When they happen to meet again at police academy, both need help-Jenko with exams and paperwork, and Schmidt with physical endurance-so they team up to be each other's respective coaches. After a failed attempt to bust a local drug ring, they're sent to 21 Jump Street, where the brusque Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) decides to send them undercover as high school students. Their job: find the supplier of a dangerous new drug called HFS. However, the twosome are off almost immediately--getting their fake identities mixed up, the brainy Schmidt ends up in drama and other easy electives while Jenko gets into AP Chemistry and other high-end classes. But they soon find a local drug runner (Dave Franco), and in order to get in with him and his inner circle, including the comely Molly (Brie Larson), they throw parties, act up, and even try the drugs--but as the captain's patience wears thin, their lack of progress on the case fills their relationship with tension.
What Works?
Tatum is okay in his third (already) film of 2012, but this is clearly Hill's movie. The crude humor, the insatiable chatter, the rubbery malleability, even the undeniable chemistry with Larson's Molly--Hill's in his element. Franco is effectively amusing as the "new-age popular kid", a laid-back, artistic hippie, and Ice Cube's outrageously profane and surly dialogue gets big laughs. Basically, for 21 Jump Street, what works is the most important thing-this being a comedy-the humor. Two big set pieces, including Jenko and Schmidt's experiencing the after-effects of HFS, had me rolling in my seat, and the laughs keep coming from beginning to end.
What Doesn't Work?
Being a comedy aimed at mostly teens and young adults, it certainly has its moments of irredeemable crudeness, attempts at character development are predictable and only hit halfway home, and a few of the adults on hand (Rob Riggle as an enthusiastic gym teacher; Ellie Kemper as the AP Chem teacher who takes an immediate interest in the muscular Jenko) are forced to stoop to imbecilic levels to meet the material. Then that last half hour, when 21 Jump Street drops any pretense of being serious, or at least in possession of a serious-minded plot, it dissolves into a lot of cheesy jokes, obvious plot developments, and lame sight gags. I wasn't expecting a lot from 21 Jump Street, but everything before that ending gave me hope that it was, if not particularly original, at least a movie that fully delivered on its promise of being enjoyable. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be.
Content:
F-words abound, as do mentions about sex and sexual gestures. There's also drug material, though it's nothing particularly graphic or offensive--as I mentioned, the scene in which Schmidt and Jenko take HFS is used to comedic effect. The only scene of violence comes at the end, but violence isn't what makes this film rated R-it's the crudeness.
Bottom Line (I promise):
A crude but engaging comedy undone by a corny and amateur-ish third act, 21 Jump Street will undoubtedly please its target audience but was close to being even better.
21 Jump Street (2012)
Based on the television series created by Patrick Hasburgh and Stephen J. Cannell
Directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller
Written by Michael Bacall
Rated R
Length: 109 minutes
Friday, March 16, 2012
MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
My Week With Marilyn (2011)
Grade: B
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh, Dominic Cooper, Zoe Wanamaker, Julia Ormond, Emma Watson, Judi Dench, Phillip Jackson, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, and Derek Jacobi
PREMISE: Based on the true story of Colin Clark, who, as a young man trying to make his way in the film business, became an unlikely confidant and object of affection for popular sex symbol Marilyn Monroe.
RATED R for language and brief nudity
Fifty years after her death, Marilyn Monroe remains the ultimate bombshell and enduring sex symbol. Posters of her in long white dresses, gussied up and blowing kisses, can be found in the same poster selections that feature today’s sweethearts like Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus. Some of her movies (Some Like It Hot, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes) remain classics, Monroe-centered gossip (she was married to baseball legend Joe DiMaggio, allegedly had affairs with Jack and Bobby Kennedy) still appear on the pages of tabloids, and her iconic halo of beach blonde hair, and seductively flowing skirts and dresses, have been attempted often, but never duplicated. No one has, or, probably, ever will have, her timeless appeal.
Thus, considering that My Week with Marilyn is based on a true story-that a young man just breaking into the film business actually got to get up close and personal with the Marilyn Monroe-makes the film incredibly intriguing. It just wouldn’t be the same today, not only because there are so few secrets and you can get to know seemingly anyone if you search the Internet hard enough, or because even our most popular contemporary leading ladies (Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston) don’t have that spark—we’re talking about Hollywood’s Golden Age. The young man in question-Colin Clark, on whose diaries the film is based-got to work with Sir Laurence Olivier, his beau Vivien Leigh (Gone With the Wind) and, of course, a woman whose breath-taking face and aura remain familiar today.
Plot: Through a refusal to say no, a willingness to do anything, and good old-fashioned stubbornness, ambitious 23-year-old Colin (Eddie Redmayne) gets the chance to work as Third Assistant Director on a movie starring the world-famous, classically-trained Olivier (a fantastic Kenneth Branagh). The presence of Olivier, plus revered actress Dame Sybil Thorndike (Dame Judi Dench), makes the movie, The Prince and The Showgirl, an event in and of itself, even before Monroe (a disarming Michelle Williams) confirms that she’ll take the role of that Showgirl. When she does, the world nearly explodes. Press attention doubles, triples. Security increases. Fanfare increases. But Colin soon sees that Monroe isn’t quite the divine goddess she appears to be on the screens, shaking her hips and blowing kisses. She has her moments, yes, what with her wit, her beautiful smile, her seductive winks, but, she’s also a young woman trying to find her place in life. She may easily usurp Leigh (Julia Ormond) as the hottest actress around, but she seems scared of the big world around her, huddling alongside her famous playwright husband, Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott), or her acting coach (Zoe Wanamaker). Olivier, with his obvious talent and his strict demands on her schedule and acting approach, frightens her. And, when Colin shows real care for her-not just a desire to eyeball her-she begins to trust him, and, when Miller goes home to escape the media and visit his children, she opens up to Colin as she has to no one else, looking for a way to escape the pressure of her celebrity life.
What Works?
In two words: the cast. Imagine what you could do, as a studio director, with-say-five years of this ensemble working on your every film. With proven talents like Williams, Branagh, Dench and Ormond, plus young, exciting talents like Redmayne and Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame)-who plays a girl working on the movie’s costume designs and Colin’s chance for a real girlfriend-you could do anything. Even those in smaller roles, like Derek Jacobi, Toby Jones, Dominic Cooper, Scott, and Wanamaker, could be leads in other films. What a group, and what a treat for a movie fan.
Redmayne is in nearly every scene, and he excels at portraying Colin’s mix of youthful awkwardness, boyish charm, and earnest romanticism, but all eyes are, of course, on Williams. The former Dawson’s Creek star (who, thankfully, seems barely recognizable from her days on the melodramatic teen program), has arguably one of the toughest roles an actress could have: the Marilyn Monroe. She looks the part (and it’s a beautiful one—with her full lips, bright blue eyes, curly blonde hair, and lithe figure, she’s unmistakably gorgeous) but I was surprised at the approach the movie takes with presenting her. This movie is not about her perceived persona, not about the posters or the celebrity gossip or the winks. What it is, really, is about the Monroe behind the scenes. As we soon find, Monroe is unreliable as an actress. She’s late on the set, she forgets her lines, she misses workdays because she’s sick/mourning in bed, she barely speaks to her husband, and she sometimes seems like a child in a diva’s body.
That’s the approach the movie takes and, though it’s a little awkward at first, you later get the sense that not only Monroe (if that was, indeed, what she was like) but many young starlets-who start hearing that they’re “the next big thing” at increasingly young ages-feel like she does here—like a deer in the headlights as everyone around them tries to make her what they want her to be. Williams’ innocence is striking, her immaturity almost shocking, at times, for a grown woman, but you get it. She cries and complains about Olivier’s domineering approach, she hates herself for rushing into marriage, she feels like there’s no one she can trust; she’s more comfortable stripping down to go skinny-dipping with Colin than she is walking onto a movie set where all cameras and all eyes are upon her. It’s not the performance I was expecting, but it’s a beautiful one. She proves memorable, and believable, as the person behind the iconic posters and winks.
Elsewhere, Branagh’s outrageous bluster is a sight to behold-he owns the first half of the film, before more time is dedicated to the Marilyn/Colin dynamic-Ormond conveys both warmth and bitterness as a proud actress who knows her day has passed, and Dench has some nice moments as an even prouder actress who’s nonetheless willing to reach out to the most attractive actress on set.
For good measure, the scenery is beautiful, the pace is quick and entertaining, and the laughs essentially balance out with the drama.
What Doesn’t Work?
The movie’s a little uneven—Monroe isn’t really a major character until about a half hour in, and then you start to realize the kind of depiction of her you’re getting. It’s also unfortunate that, with this cast, more of the actors don’t get more to do (only Redmayne, Williams, and Branagh really get to flesh out their portrayals).
Content?
There are brief glimpses of Williams’ backside, but, other than that, the R rating comes solely courtesy of the four-letter words, most of them courtesy of Branagh’s increasingly-frustrated Olivier, who finds in Marilyn possibly the one person in the world he can’t charm, persuade, or bully into being who he wants her to be.
Bottom line (I promise):
It’s not the most exciting movie, and some of you may grow a little tired of the diva-like antics (though, in all fairness, why do we call them divas if not for acting like Williams does here?), but this true story carries considerable intrigue for movie/celebrity fans, and a hefty emotional layer for fans of romance.
My Week With Marilyn (2011)
Based on the Books "My Week With Marilyn" and "The Prince, The Showgirl, and Me" by Colin Clark
Directed by Simon Curtis
Written by Adrian Hodges
Rated R for language and brief nudity
Length: 99 minutes
Grade: B
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh, Dominic Cooper, Zoe Wanamaker, Julia Ormond, Emma Watson, Judi Dench, Phillip Jackson, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, and Derek Jacobi
PREMISE: Based on the true story of Colin Clark, who, as a young man trying to make his way in the film business, became an unlikely confidant and object of affection for popular sex symbol Marilyn Monroe.
RATED R for language and brief nudity
Fifty years after her death, Marilyn Monroe remains the ultimate bombshell and enduring sex symbol. Posters of her in long white dresses, gussied up and blowing kisses, can be found in the same poster selections that feature today’s sweethearts like Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus. Some of her movies (Some Like It Hot, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes) remain classics, Monroe-centered gossip (she was married to baseball legend Joe DiMaggio, allegedly had affairs with Jack and Bobby Kennedy) still appear on the pages of tabloids, and her iconic halo of beach blonde hair, and seductively flowing skirts and dresses, have been attempted often, but never duplicated. No one has, or, probably, ever will have, her timeless appeal.
Thus, considering that My Week with Marilyn is based on a true story-that a young man just breaking into the film business actually got to get up close and personal with the Marilyn Monroe-makes the film incredibly intriguing. It just wouldn’t be the same today, not only because there are so few secrets and you can get to know seemingly anyone if you search the Internet hard enough, or because even our most popular contemporary leading ladies (Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston) don’t have that spark—we’re talking about Hollywood’s Golden Age. The young man in question-Colin Clark, on whose diaries the film is based-got to work with Sir Laurence Olivier, his beau Vivien Leigh (Gone With the Wind) and, of course, a woman whose breath-taking face and aura remain familiar today.
Plot: Through a refusal to say no, a willingness to do anything, and good old-fashioned stubbornness, ambitious 23-year-old Colin (Eddie Redmayne) gets the chance to work as Third Assistant Director on a movie starring the world-famous, classically-trained Olivier (a fantastic Kenneth Branagh). The presence of Olivier, plus revered actress Dame Sybil Thorndike (Dame Judi Dench), makes the movie, The Prince and The Showgirl, an event in and of itself, even before Monroe (a disarming Michelle Williams) confirms that she’ll take the role of that Showgirl. When she does, the world nearly explodes. Press attention doubles, triples. Security increases. Fanfare increases. But Colin soon sees that Monroe isn’t quite the divine goddess she appears to be on the screens, shaking her hips and blowing kisses. She has her moments, yes, what with her wit, her beautiful smile, her seductive winks, but, she’s also a young woman trying to find her place in life. She may easily usurp Leigh (Julia Ormond) as the hottest actress around, but she seems scared of the big world around her, huddling alongside her famous playwright husband, Arthur Miller (Dougray Scott), or her acting coach (Zoe Wanamaker). Olivier, with his obvious talent and his strict demands on her schedule and acting approach, frightens her. And, when Colin shows real care for her-not just a desire to eyeball her-she begins to trust him, and, when Miller goes home to escape the media and visit his children, she opens up to Colin as she has to no one else, looking for a way to escape the pressure of her celebrity life.
What Works?
In two words: the cast. Imagine what you could do, as a studio director, with-say-five years of this ensemble working on your every film. With proven talents like Williams, Branagh, Dench and Ormond, plus young, exciting talents like Redmayne and Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame)-who plays a girl working on the movie’s costume designs and Colin’s chance for a real girlfriend-you could do anything. Even those in smaller roles, like Derek Jacobi, Toby Jones, Dominic Cooper, Scott, and Wanamaker, could be leads in other films. What a group, and what a treat for a movie fan.
Redmayne is in nearly every scene, and he excels at portraying Colin’s mix of youthful awkwardness, boyish charm, and earnest romanticism, but all eyes are, of course, on Williams. The former Dawson’s Creek star (who, thankfully, seems barely recognizable from her days on the melodramatic teen program), has arguably one of the toughest roles an actress could have: the Marilyn Monroe. She looks the part (and it’s a beautiful one—with her full lips, bright blue eyes, curly blonde hair, and lithe figure, she’s unmistakably gorgeous) but I was surprised at the approach the movie takes with presenting her. This movie is not about her perceived persona, not about the posters or the celebrity gossip or the winks. What it is, really, is about the Monroe behind the scenes. As we soon find, Monroe is unreliable as an actress. She’s late on the set, she forgets her lines, she misses workdays because she’s sick/mourning in bed, she barely speaks to her husband, and she sometimes seems like a child in a diva’s body.
That’s the approach the movie takes and, though it’s a little awkward at first, you later get the sense that not only Monroe (if that was, indeed, what she was like) but many young starlets-who start hearing that they’re “the next big thing” at increasingly young ages-feel like she does here—like a deer in the headlights as everyone around them tries to make her what they want her to be. Williams’ innocence is striking, her immaturity almost shocking, at times, for a grown woman, but you get it. She cries and complains about Olivier’s domineering approach, she hates herself for rushing into marriage, she feels like there’s no one she can trust; she’s more comfortable stripping down to go skinny-dipping with Colin than she is walking onto a movie set where all cameras and all eyes are upon her. It’s not the performance I was expecting, but it’s a beautiful one. She proves memorable, and believable, as the person behind the iconic posters and winks.
Elsewhere, Branagh’s outrageous bluster is a sight to behold-he owns the first half of the film, before more time is dedicated to the Marilyn/Colin dynamic-Ormond conveys both warmth and bitterness as a proud actress who knows her day has passed, and Dench has some nice moments as an even prouder actress who’s nonetheless willing to reach out to the most attractive actress on set.
For good measure, the scenery is beautiful, the pace is quick and entertaining, and the laughs essentially balance out with the drama.
What Doesn’t Work?
The movie’s a little uneven—Monroe isn’t really a major character until about a half hour in, and then you start to realize the kind of depiction of her you’re getting. It’s also unfortunate that, with this cast, more of the actors don’t get more to do (only Redmayne, Williams, and Branagh really get to flesh out their portrayals).
Content?
There are brief glimpses of Williams’ backside, but, other than that, the R rating comes solely courtesy of the four-letter words, most of them courtesy of Branagh’s increasingly-frustrated Olivier, who finds in Marilyn possibly the one person in the world he can’t charm, persuade, or bully into being who he wants her to be.
Bottom line (I promise):
It’s not the most exciting movie, and some of you may grow a little tired of the diva-like antics (though, in all fairness, why do we call them divas if not for acting like Williams does here?), but this true story carries considerable intrigue for movie/celebrity fans, and a hefty emotional layer for fans of romance.
My Week With Marilyn (2011)
Based on the Books "My Week With Marilyn" and "The Prince, The Showgirl, and Me" by Colin Clark
Directed by Simon Curtis
Written by Adrian Hodges
Rated R for language and brief nudity
Length: 99 minutes
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
ACT OF VALOR
Act of Valor (2012)
Grade: B-
PREMISE: Active-duty U.S. Navy SEALs star in a film about a squad of the elite warriors who look to save an imprisoned CIA operative in Costa Rica, and, in the process, learn more about a drug/crime cartel that has hideouts across the world and may be planning to move high explosives into the United States.
RATED R for strong, bloody war violence, language, and a scene of torture
Act of Valor both is and is not a movie as we know movies. Starring, as everyone should know by now, actual, serving U.S. Navy SEALs, it is able to strike a chord almost no other movie can claim to strike, that the people we’re watching are not actors, that what is happening onscreen is what they do for a living. Given that fact, plus the documentary feel of the rapid editing, long stretches of near-total silence, moments of dizzying confusion, and the relevance of the material (involving foreign insurgents, suicide bombers, and political prisoners) Act of Valor employs a kind of believable thrust that is rare in movies today.
That approach backfires a little—though it undoubtedly takes someone as cynical and heart-hearted as me to notice—when we eventually remember that it is not a documentary, so, even when some of the characters “die”, and are buried with honors, we can rest easy knowing that person is not dead-they are alive and well-while thousands of real, actual people are dying and their real friends and families are grieving.
Of course, the movie meant as a memorial to those courageous people, and it is an effective one: more than once during AOV did I find myself thinking “no way in hell would I ever go in there (or do that); thank God there's somebody who's willing..."
Plot: When a CIA operative (Roselyn Sanchez) working as a doctor in South America while trying to pick up information on terrorist/drug smuggler Christo (Alex Veadov) is imprisoned by armed thugs, a particular squad of Navy SEALs (whose actual names are unavailable in the film’s credits, or online, for security reasons) rushes into action. Leaving behind beloved, adoring families, they tangle with scores of armed baddies in order to save the operative, suffering injuries in the process, and learning that Christo is only the money of the cartel—the brain, heart, and point man is a Ukranian Muslim convert, Shabal (Jason Cottle). Worse, Shabal is already arranging for people armed with deadly, explosive vests, that can fool even electronic metal detectors, to sneak into the United States through Mexico, where he plans to make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park. Using the most up-to-date, sophisticated intelligence technology, the SEALs scramble to find Shabal and his bombers and stop them from entering the United States, at all costs.
What Works?
Though some of the family-time scenes before the troops deploy can be a little treacly, it's impossible to ignore the real ramifications of men and women leaving their families behind to do the most dangerous work on earth, and, likewise, for their families to let them go, and to try to grasp what it might be like if they don’t come back. The movie makes an effort to give us that heartfelt connection, and it’s able to, especially in the final scenes—Act of Valor has one of the most emotionally-powerful endings I’ve ever seen.
But that’s the boring stuff. When it comes to my instant reaction to Act of Valor, I am for some reason reminded of the basic word-of-mouth response to 1999’s cheerleading flick Bring It On: “the movie’s kinda dumb, but the girls are really hot”—in the case of AOV, it’s: “the plot and dialogue are kinda lame, but the action is amazing.” And it really is. AOV contains three electrifying, can't-look-away action sequences that rank up there with the best in the history of war movies, punctuated, of course, by the knowledge that the men onscreen really do these things, use these weapons, work these tactics, and undertake these missions; it’s refreshing to be able to look at a movie where the good guys have uncanny accuracy with firearms-and get backup at just the right crucial moments-and have an excuse-(as in, “hey, those guys train for this stuff; they really can shoot that well!”).
The SEALs’ acting is, well, I’ll get to that, but I will say this: the performance in the movie that I’ll remember was that of Jason Cottle as Shabal. Scary-eyed, thick-bearded, and deadly serious, it’s horrifying to see him look over weapons, plot to kill as many people as possible with one bomb, and “assuage the fears” of those who will be wearing said bombs (“What are you upset about? You’ll be with your husband in heaven!”).
What Doesn’t Work?
Well, that’s easy—most of the dialogue sucks. Okay, so, I knew it was supposed to be that way going in, but, still, most of the Americans’ lines (how’s that for irony in an American-made film about American heroes?) clang off the ear. Whether a little schmaltzy (“I want to look into your eyes when our first child is born”), or outright cheesy (“the only thing better than this is being a dad!”), the dialogue does make it hard to hold back the sniggers at times. I mean, do Navy SEALs, during an official, military briefing, really say things like “there’s a fairly large group of armed assholes”, or “sup bro?” And, well, okay, I don’t know how it would go down in real life if this happened, but there’s a bizarre moment where a SEAL is hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) that doesn’t explode; a buddy helps him up and then stands there holding the rocket, going: “Man, good thing that was a dud. Look at it.” The whole time, I was thinking: “don’t just stand there, throw the f---ing thing away!”
I’ve heard further criticism of the film, that it's unrealistic to paint all Navy SEALs as sensitive family men, but I won’t go there. Basically, with Act of Valor, you get what you paid for: heroic American guys with families who go off to stop bad guys from hurting innocent people, sometimes giving their lives in the process. During the final frames, when two columns of names pass up the screen to commemorate the SEALs who’ve been in combat lost since 9/11, it’s a moment to stun you into silence. It’s a lot of names.
Content:
Obviously, there’s good morals about heroism, sacrifice, friendship, courage, love, etc…but the violence is bloody, the language is coarse, the bad guys are fanatical, irredeemable bad guys (sounds like real life, huh?) and there is a nasty glimpse of what sometimes happens to people taken prisoner by those who have nothing to lose.
Bottom Line (I promise): Act of Valor may not be the most legitimately-acted movie you’ve ever seen, and it does smack of propaganda, but it will hit you in the gut with furiously-intense action scenes, and in the heart with the realization that families are broken every day because people like these characters lay down the ultimate sacrifice.
Act of Valor (2012)
Directed by Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh
Written by Kurt Johnstad
Rated R for bloody war violence, language, and a scene of torture
Length: 110 minutes
Grade: B-
PREMISE: Active-duty U.S. Navy SEALs star in a film about a squad of the elite warriors who look to save an imprisoned CIA operative in Costa Rica, and, in the process, learn more about a drug/crime cartel that has hideouts across the world and may be planning to move high explosives into the United States.
RATED R for strong, bloody war violence, language, and a scene of torture
Act of Valor both is and is not a movie as we know movies. Starring, as everyone should know by now, actual, serving U.S. Navy SEALs, it is able to strike a chord almost no other movie can claim to strike, that the people we’re watching are not actors, that what is happening onscreen is what they do for a living. Given that fact, plus the documentary feel of the rapid editing, long stretches of near-total silence, moments of dizzying confusion, and the relevance of the material (involving foreign insurgents, suicide bombers, and political prisoners) Act of Valor employs a kind of believable thrust that is rare in movies today.
That approach backfires a little—though it undoubtedly takes someone as cynical and heart-hearted as me to notice—when we eventually remember that it is not a documentary, so, even when some of the characters “die”, and are buried with honors, we can rest easy knowing that person is not dead-they are alive and well-while thousands of real, actual people are dying and their real friends and families are grieving.
Of course, the movie meant as a memorial to those courageous people, and it is an effective one: more than once during AOV did I find myself thinking “no way in hell would I ever go in there (or do that); thank God there's somebody who's willing..."
Plot: When a CIA operative (Roselyn Sanchez) working as a doctor in South America while trying to pick up information on terrorist/drug smuggler Christo (Alex Veadov) is imprisoned by armed thugs, a particular squad of Navy SEALs (whose actual names are unavailable in the film’s credits, or online, for security reasons) rushes into action. Leaving behind beloved, adoring families, they tangle with scores of armed baddies in order to save the operative, suffering injuries in the process, and learning that Christo is only the money of the cartel—the brain, heart, and point man is a Ukranian Muslim convert, Shabal (Jason Cottle). Worse, Shabal is already arranging for people armed with deadly, explosive vests, that can fool even electronic metal detectors, to sneak into the United States through Mexico, where he plans to make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park. Using the most up-to-date, sophisticated intelligence technology, the SEALs scramble to find Shabal and his bombers and stop them from entering the United States, at all costs.
What Works?
Though some of the family-time scenes before the troops deploy can be a little treacly, it's impossible to ignore the real ramifications of men and women leaving their families behind to do the most dangerous work on earth, and, likewise, for their families to let them go, and to try to grasp what it might be like if they don’t come back. The movie makes an effort to give us that heartfelt connection, and it’s able to, especially in the final scenes—Act of Valor has one of the most emotionally-powerful endings I’ve ever seen.
But that’s the boring stuff. When it comes to my instant reaction to Act of Valor, I am for some reason reminded of the basic word-of-mouth response to 1999’s cheerleading flick Bring It On: “the movie’s kinda dumb, but the girls are really hot”—in the case of AOV, it’s: “the plot and dialogue are kinda lame, but the action is amazing.” And it really is. AOV contains three electrifying, can't-look-away action sequences that rank up there with the best in the history of war movies, punctuated, of course, by the knowledge that the men onscreen really do these things, use these weapons, work these tactics, and undertake these missions; it’s refreshing to be able to look at a movie where the good guys have uncanny accuracy with firearms-and get backup at just the right crucial moments-and have an excuse-(as in, “hey, those guys train for this stuff; they really can shoot that well!”).
The SEALs’ acting is, well, I’ll get to that, but I will say this: the performance in the movie that I’ll remember was that of Jason Cottle as Shabal. Scary-eyed, thick-bearded, and deadly serious, it’s horrifying to see him look over weapons, plot to kill as many people as possible with one bomb, and “assuage the fears” of those who will be wearing said bombs (“What are you upset about? You’ll be with your husband in heaven!”).
What Doesn’t Work?
Well, that’s easy—most of the dialogue sucks. Okay, so, I knew it was supposed to be that way going in, but, still, most of the Americans’ lines (how’s that for irony in an American-made film about American heroes?) clang off the ear. Whether a little schmaltzy (“I want to look into your eyes when our first child is born”), or outright cheesy (“the only thing better than this is being a dad!”), the dialogue does make it hard to hold back the sniggers at times. I mean, do Navy SEALs, during an official, military briefing, really say things like “there’s a fairly large group of armed assholes”, or “sup bro?” And, well, okay, I don’t know how it would go down in real life if this happened, but there’s a bizarre moment where a SEAL is hit by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) that doesn’t explode; a buddy helps him up and then stands there holding the rocket, going: “Man, good thing that was a dud. Look at it.” The whole time, I was thinking: “don’t just stand there, throw the f---ing thing away!”
I’ve heard further criticism of the film, that it's unrealistic to paint all Navy SEALs as sensitive family men, but I won’t go there. Basically, with Act of Valor, you get what you paid for: heroic American guys with families who go off to stop bad guys from hurting innocent people, sometimes giving their lives in the process. During the final frames, when two columns of names pass up the screen to commemorate the SEALs who’ve been in combat lost since 9/11, it’s a moment to stun you into silence. It’s a lot of names.
Content:
Obviously, there’s good morals about heroism, sacrifice, friendship, courage, love, etc…but the violence is bloody, the language is coarse, the bad guys are fanatical, irredeemable bad guys (sounds like real life, huh?) and there is a nasty glimpse of what sometimes happens to people taken prisoner by those who have nothing to lose.
Bottom Line (I promise): Act of Valor may not be the most legitimately-acted movie you’ve ever seen, and it does smack of propaganda, but it will hit you in the gut with furiously-intense action scenes, and in the heart with the realization that families are broken every day because people like these characters lay down the ultimate sacrifice.
Act of Valor (2012)
Directed by Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh
Written by Kurt Johnstad
Rated R for bloody war violence, language, and a scene of torture
Length: 110 minutes
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
THE THREE MUSKETEERS
The Three Musketeers (2011)
Grade: C
Starring: Logan Lerman, Matthew McFadyen, Christoph Waltz, Milla Jovovich, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Mads Mikkelsen, Freddie Fox, Gabriella Wilde and Juno Temple.
PREMISE: The teenage son of a musketeer joins forces with a famous trio of France's special defenders as their country nears the brink of potential war with England in the early 1600s.
RATED PG-13 for action/adventure violence
Disney’s remake of The Three Musketeers is nothing spectacular, but, then, how could it really be? Based on one of the most well-known stories of all time (originating with Alexandra Dumas’ classic book), and following at least three other film versions, director Paul W.S. Anderson nonetheless strives to give his adaptation of the fabled story a new-age, glossy umph, a la Sherlock Holmes. The result is a mixed bag—a movie that will thrill younger/entertainment-seeking viewers with its action and moments of comedy, but a clunker as far as character development and serious moviemaking go.
Plot: Not long after Athos (Matthew McFadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) are betrayed during their quest to retrieve Leonardo Da Vinci’s designs for a flying warship, they are sought out by country-raised D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman), whose father was a musketeer and who desires nothing more than to likewise be one. He finds the three heroes “retired” and rather embittered, but their services as guardians of the crown are soon needed once again. After all, France’s king, Louis the 13th, is a teenager (Freddie Fox) whose chief adviser, Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) has been scheming with the English Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) to start a war between their nations, thereby giving the more experienced Cardinal a more prominent place of influence. Helping them is someone the musketeers know all too well, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), a skilled thief and swords-woman who was once part of their team. The plans, the musketeers find, may involve seduction, robbery, murder and an attempt to turn the king against one of those dearest to him.
What Doesn’t Work?
For one, the pacing. I know this movie has to remain at least somewhat faithful to the book from which its story was derived, and, no, I have not reading Dumas’ epic, but much of the film’s early going borders on the ridiculous. For instance, once in Paris, D’Artagnan meets the girl of his dreams (Gabriella Wilde) and wins the approval of the titular heroes in the same scene, just after “happening” to meet all three musketeers one after another, at “random”, in about two minutes of screen time. Another laughable development is the idea that D’Artagnan, on his first ever venture from home without his parents, would, at his very first stop, not only intentionally aggravate somebody (the Captain of the Kingsguard-played by Mads Mikkelsen-no less), but do so in such preening, oafish fashion (“My horse is sensitive, you see. So I’m going to have to ask you to apologize to her.”) that it's ludicrous. (Oh, and am I the only person who, once I learned the horse’s name was Buttercup, couldn’t stop thinking of The Princess Bride?) Anyway, once the action starts, Musketeers proves more entertaining, yet it’s all easy-peasy action—you never feel like the heroes are in real danger (this is one of those movies where the good guys can’t miss and the bad guys can’t hit the broad side of a barn). Also of note is the fact that one of the climactic swordfights lasts forever.
It probably goes without saying that this isn’t a movie that cares a whole lot about character development, but that still won’t keep me from complaining about the flashy but largely paper-thin ensemble. D’Artagnan, played by the bland Lerman, is an annoyingly-smug nitwit who’s uninvolving even by the fairly-low standards of blockbuster leading men. The three musketeers barely register as individual people (Athos alone is given any semblance of an actual personality, probably because he’s played by McFadyen, of Pride & Prejudice fame). Jovovich works hard as Milady-probably because she’s delighted to be in something other than a Resident Evil sequel-but she’s saddled with the task of playing one of those characters who flip-flops so often that you can't decipher her allegiance even at the film’s end. The only actors who make real impressions are the enjoyably feisty Bloom as the swaggering duke, an effective Freddie Fox as the earnest King Louis, and Waltz, who could do lowbrow villainy like this in his sleep.
There’s also a running gag involving the Musketeers’ clumsy butler (James Corden) that gets old about as soon as it starts.
What Works?
The movie looks spectacular. The animation put into bringing the cities (London, Paris) to life is breathtaking, as are the eye-popping, brightly-colored costumes sported by, in particular, the king and the duke. There’s at least one inventive stunt that you don’t really see coming, there are a few real laughs to be had, and, as I mentioned, not all the actors are phoning this in. Most importantly, Musketeers is chock-full of Pirates of the Caribbean-esque swordfights, gunfights, chase scenes, and cannon barrages, so it should satisfy anyone seeking some action-packed light entertainment.
Content?
About as squeaky-clean as contemporary blockbusters get. There’s lots of fighting, but barely a drop of blood. There's a considerable amount of cleavage on display, as well--deriving from the tight-fitting, low-cut bodices on the women—but the most sensual things get is a handful of very chaste kisses. This is a light PG-13, suitable for all but the youngest viewers.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
A shallow but moderately-entertaining take on the classic tale-and, apparently, likely give us a sequel-The Three Musketeers is a harmless, forgettable film.
The Three Musketeers (2011)
Based on the Book "The Three Musketeers" by Alexandre Dumas
Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson
Written by Alex Litvak and Andrew Davies
Rated PG-13 for action violence
Length: 110 minutes
Grade: C
Starring: Logan Lerman, Matthew McFadyen, Christoph Waltz, Milla Jovovich, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Mads Mikkelsen, Freddie Fox, Gabriella Wilde and Juno Temple.
PREMISE: The teenage son of a musketeer joins forces with a famous trio of France's special defenders as their country nears the brink of potential war with England in the early 1600s.
RATED PG-13 for action/adventure violence
Disney’s remake of The Three Musketeers is nothing spectacular, but, then, how could it really be? Based on one of the most well-known stories of all time (originating with Alexandra Dumas’ classic book), and following at least three other film versions, director Paul W.S. Anderson nonetheless strives to give his adaptation of the fabled story a new-age, glossy umph, a la Sherlock Holmes. The result is a mixed bag—a movie that will thrill younger/entertainment-seeking viewers with its action and moments of comedy, but a clunker as far as character development and serious moviemaking go.
Plot: Not long after Athos (Matthew McFadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) are betrayed during their quest to retrieve Leonardo Da Vinci’s designs for a flying warship, they are sought out by country-raised D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman), whose father was a musketeer and who desires nothing more than to likewise be one. He finds the three heroes “retired” and rather embittered, but their services as guardians of the crown are soon needed once again. After all, France’s king, Louis the 13th, is a teenager (Freddie Fox) whose chief adviser, Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) has been scheming with the English Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) to start a war between their nations, thereby giving the more experienced Cardinal a more prominent place of influence. Helping them is someone the musketeers know all too well, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), a skilled thief and swords-woman who was once part of their team. The plans, the musketeers find, may involve seduction, robbery, murder and an attempt to turn the king against one of those dearest to him.
What Doesn’t Work?
For one, the pacing. I know this movie has to remain at least somewhat faithful to the book from which its story was derived, and, no, I have not reading Dumas’ epic, but much of the film’s early going borders on the ridiculous. For instance, once in Paris, D’Artagnan meets the girl of his dreams (Gabriella Wilde) and wins the approval of the titular heroes in the same scene, just after “happening” to meet all three musketeers one after another, at “random”, in about two minutes of screen time. Another laughable development is the idea that D’Artagnan, on his first ever venture from home without his parents, would, at his very first stop, not only intentionally aggravate somebody (the Captain of the Kingsguard-played by Mads Mikkelsen-no less), but do so in such preening, oafish fashion (“My horse is sensitive, you see. So I’m going to have to ask you to apologize to her.”) that it's ludicrous. (Oh, and am I the only person who, once I learned the horse’s name was Buttercup, couldn’t stop thinking of The Princess Bride?) Anyway, once the action starts, Musketeers proves more entertaining, yet it’s all easy-peasy action—you never feel like the heroes are in real danger (this is one of those movies where the good guys can’t miss and the bad guys can’t hit the broad side of a barn). Also of note is the fact that one of the climactic swordfights lasts forever.
It probably goes without saying that this isn’t a movie that cares a whole lot about character development, but that still won’t keep me from complaining about the flashy but largely paper-thin ensemble. D’Artagnan, played by the bland Lerman, is an annoyingly-smug nitwit who’s uninvolving even by the fairly-low standards of blockbuster leading men. The three musketeers barely register as individual people (Athos alone is given any semblance of an actual personality, probably because he’s played by McFadyen, of Pride & Prejudice fame). Jovovich works hard as Milady-probably because she’s delighted to be in something other than a Resident Evil sequel-but she’s saddled with the task of playing one of those characters who flip-flops so often that you can't decipher her allegiance even at the film’s end. The only actors who make real impressions are the enjoyably feisty Bloom as the swaggering duke, an effective Freddie Fox as the earnest King Louis, and Waltz, who could do lowbrow villainy like this in his sleep.
There’s also a running gag involving the Musketeers’ clumsy butler (James Corden) that gets old about as soon as it starts.
What Works?
The movie looks spectacular. The animation put into bringing the cities (London, Paris) to life is breathtaking, as are the eye-popping, brightly-colored costumes sported by, in particular, the king and the duke. There’s at least one inventive stunt that you don’t really see coming, there are a few real laughs to be had, and, as I mentioned, not all the actors are phoning this in. Most importantly, Musketeers is chock-full of Pirates of the Caribbean-esque swordfights, gunfights, chase scenes, and cannon barrages, so it should satisfy anyone seeking some action-packed light entertainment.
Content?
About as squeaky-clean as contemporary blockbusters get. There’s lots of fighting, but barely a drop of blood. There's a considerable amount of cleavage on display, as well--deriving from the tight-fitting, low-cut bodices on the women—but the most sensual things get is a handful of very chaste kisses. This is a light PG-13, suitable for all but the youngest viewers.
Bottom Line (I Promise):
A shallow but moderately-entertaining take on the classic tale-and, apparently, likely give us a sequel-The Three Musketeers is a harmless, forgettable film.
The Three Musketeers (2011)
Based on the Book "The Three Musketeers" by Alexandre Dumas
Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson
Written by Alex Litvak and Andrew Davies
Rated PG-13 for action violence
Length: 110 minutes
Monday, March 12, 2012
JOHN CARTER
John Carter (2012)
Grade: B-
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Mark Strong, Dominic West, Ciaran Hinds, and Daryl Sabara, with Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton and Thomas Haden Church
PREMISE: An outlaw transported to Mars in the late 1860s finds himself in the middle of a war between the sophisticated alien species’ that rule the planet.
RATED PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and brief disturbing images
Two quick thoughts about the new Disney film John Carter:
1) It will seem pretty familiar to all but the most casual moviegoers. The basic storyline and themes closely resemble those of James Cameron’s Avatar, and it also bears noticeable similarities to numerous other films, including The Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, and The Matrix.
2) It will probably die a quick death at the box office. Made for a reported $250 million, it is unfortunately highly unlikely to win back that hefty budget, given that the title sucks, it’s based on a book no one’s heard of (Edgar Rice Burrough’s ‘A Princess of Mars’), it doesn’t feature any particularly recognizable stars, it’s currently competing with Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax for people’s money, and it will be totally forgotten as soon as The Hunger Games hits theaters in two weeks.
Nonetheless, I walked out of John Carter nothing short of thrilled. Was it cliché? Yes. Could it have been better? Of course. Did I guess many key lines of dialogue, and many key plot points, just before they happened? Yep. But I still enjoyed myself.
The Plot: John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a former Confederate soldier and malcontent running from federal marshals when he stumbles across a cave filled with alien hieroglyphics. A chance meeting with a terrestrial to whom the symbols belong sends Carter to Mars (here called Barsoom), where, he finds, the lower gravity gives him super strength and the ability to jump incredible distances (he can also breathe on the planet’s barren surface). No sooner has he discovered these things than he is taken captive by a pack of tall, green, four-armed aliens called Tharks. He impresses the Tharks, particularly their leader, Tars (voice of Willem Dafoe), with his resourcefulness, physical prowess, and newfound jumping ability, and that jumping ability soon allows him to save the princess (Lynn Collins) of the humanoid city of Helium, when her aircraft is attacked by minions of the power-hungry general Sab Than (Dominic West) in the nearby desert.
The princess, it turns out, was fleeing Sab Than because she’s been promised to him by her father (Ciaran Hinds), in order to unite their kingdoms in a peaceful alliance. The princess, who has brains and ambition, naturally wants none of it, but there are forces beyond even her control. A group of Thurns (immortal, essentially-angelic beings, who are said to be servants of a Goddess) are actually pulling the strings, having given Sab Than the weapon that will destroy Barsoom. The princess may just know the source of that weapon’s power-the source of the porthole that transported John Carter to Barsoom, and can get him back-but it’s a race against time as they flee Sab Than and his raiders, who are assisted at every turn by Thurn leader Mattai Shang (Mark Strong).
What Works?
To be taken at least semi-seriously, John Carter, like all sci-fi/action movies of the modern era, has to get one thing right: the special effects. And Carter does just that. The cities, aircraft, landscapes, and creatures, particularly the Tharks-which look alien but also possess a human quality not unlike the Gungans from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace-are terrific. If they aren’t as convincing as the Nav’i from Avatar, they’re close. Another key ingredient for films like this-especially ones that have a lot of explaining to do-is to move quickly, and Carter does: despite being more than two hours long, it rarely drags; things tend to happen in a jiffy. There are at least three big action sequences that are all engaging enough, and the movie also makes good use of a framing device (John tells his story to his nephew, Edgar (Daryl Sabara) via letter) that turns out to be a little more than it originally seems.
What Doesn’t Work?
Like I said, this movie could hardly be more familiar and more obvious—it’s not going to win any points for originality, and it won’t come out favorably in comparisons to the film it most closely resembles-Avatar-because it lacks that film’s feeling and epic sense of scale.
The predictability of the movie and plot seeps into the actors, which isn’t entirely their fault—we’ve just seen these character types so many times before. Kitsch is okay as the titular Carter. He plays it determinedly straight and manages convincingly in the battle scenes, but he tends to trip over more emotional, intimate moments, and, at times, attempts to convey his toughness by speaking in gruff, deep-throated tones not unlike Christian Bale's Batman growl. Collins, as the princess, looks pretty despite a slightly unbecoming orange tan, and she works hard, but the part has been done so often before (she wants more than just marriage, she’s handy with a blade) that it's hard for her to be particularly memorable. Ditto for West as the sleazy villain and Hinds as the noble-but-world-weary king. Strong’s good enough as the supernatural uber-villain (goodness, will this man ever play a good guy?). And Willem Dafoe and Samantha Morton (as Dafoe’s clan leader’s estranged daughter) manage effectively through the motion capture animation.
That the key pieces of the mythology, with the planets, supernatural forces, Goddess, and whatnot, are all too bungled, is another of Carter's problems.. I couldn’t give much more of a complex plot synopsis if I wanted to, because I didn’t understand much of these important elements—it doesn’t help when it has to sound all alien-y (code for hard-to-pronounce).
No, John Carter wasn’t perfect, and no, it wasn’t particularly original, but it erased two hours and twelve minutes with ease, and it has one of those endings that you wouldn’t at all mind seeing go on just a few minutes longer. The key couple doesn’t have much chemistry, and if you can guess every beat of the last thirty minutes, you won’t be the only one, but Carter isn’t taking itself too seriously. I floated out of the theater and enjoyed the ride home because I got the action, adventure, and fantastical derring-do I’d been seeking. Coulda been better, but I’ll take it.
Content?
Family-friendly, for the most part. A hint of Carter’s tragic past is revealed, and there is a fair amount of violence, but, except for some blue alien blood, it’s pretty gore-free. There’s no swearing, and just a bit of kissing. Nothing to panic about.
Bottom Line (I promise):
It probably won’t knock your socks off with its acting or originality, but Carter scores points for being entertaining; if you just can’t stay out of theaters any longer in your desperate wait for The Hunger Games, this action-packed epic makes for an interesting option.
JOHN CARTER (2012)
Based on the book 'A Princess of Mars' by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Directed by Andrew Stanton
Written by Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and gore, and brief disturbing images
Length: 132 minutes
Grade: B-
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Mark Strong, Dominic West, Ciaran Hinds, and Daryl Sabara, with Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton and Thomas Haden Church
PREMISE: An outlaw transported to Mars in the late 1860s finds himself in the middle of a war between the sophisticated alien species’ that rule the planet.
RATED PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and brief disturbing images
Two quick thoughts about the new Disney film John Carter:
1) It will seem pretty familiar to all but the most casual moviegoers. The basic storyline and themes closely resemble those of James Cameron’s Avatar, and it also bears noticeable similarities to numerous other films, including The Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, and The Matrix.
2) It will probably die a quick death at the box office. Made for a reported $250 million, it is unfortunately highly unlikely to win back that hefty budget, given that the title sucks, it’s based on a book no one’s heard of (Edgar Rice Burrough’s ‘A Princess of Mars’), it doesn’t feature any particularly recognizable stars, it’s currently competing with Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax for people’s money, and it will be totally forgotten as soon as The Hunger Games hits theaters in two weeks.
Nonetheless, I walked out of John Carter nothing short of thrilled. Was it cliché? Yes. Could it have been better? Of course. Did I guess many key lines of dialogue, and many key plot points, just before they happened? Yep. But I still enjoyed myself.
The Plot: John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a former Confederate soldier and malcontent running from federal marshals when he stumbles across a cave filled with alien hieroglyphics. A chance meeting with a terrestrial to whom the symbols belong sends Carter to Mars (here called Barsoom), where, he finds, the lower gravity gives him super strength and the ability to jump incredible distances (he can also breathe on the planet’s barren surface). No sooner has he discovered these things than he is taken captive by a pack of tall, green, four-armed aliens called Tharks. He impresses the Tharks, particularly their leader, Tars (voice of Willem Dafoe), with his resourcefulness, physical prowess, and newfound jumping ability, and that jumping ability soon allows him to save the princess (Lynn Collins) of the humanoid city of Helium, when her aircraft is attacked by minions of the power-hungry general Sab Than (Dominic West) in the nearby desert.
The princess, it turns out, was fleeing Sab Than because she’s been promised to him by her father (Ciaran Hinds), in order to unite their kingdoms in a peaceful alliance. The princess, who has brains and ambition, naturally wants none of it, but there are forces beyond even her control. A group of Thurns (immortal, essentially-angelic beings, who are said to be servants of a Goddess) are actually pulling the strings, having given Sab Than the weapon that will destroy Barsoom. The princess may just know the source of that weapon’s power-the source of the porthole that transported John Carter to Barsoom, and can get him back-but it’s a race against time as they flee Sab Than and his raiders, who are assisted at every turn by Thurn leader Mattai Shang (Mark Strong).
What Works?
To be taken at least semi-seriously, John Carter, like all sci-fi/action movies of the modern era, has to get one thing right: the special effects. And Carter does just that. The cities, aircraft, landscapes, and creatures, particularly the Tharks-which look alien but also possess a human quality not unlike the Gungans from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace-are terrific. If they aren’t as convincing as the Nav’i from Avatar, they’re close. Another key ingredient for films like this-especially ones that have a lot of explaining to do-is to move quickly, and Carter does: despite being more than two hours long, it rarely drags; things tend to happen in a jiffy. There are at least three big action sequences that are all engaging enough, and the movie also makes good use of a framing device (John tells his story to his nephew, Edgar (Daryl Sabara) via letter) that turns out to be a little more than it originally seems.
What Doesn’t Work?
Like I said, this movie could hardly be more familiar and more obvious—it’s not going to win any points for originality, and it won’t come out favorably in comparisons to the film it most closely resembles-Avatar-because it lacks that film’s feeling and epic sense of scale.
The predictability of the movie and plot seeps into the actors, which isn’t entirely their fault—we’ve just seen these character types so many times before. Kitsch is okay as the titular Carter. He plays it determinedly straight and manages convincingly in the battle scenes, but he tends to trip over more emotional, intimate moments, and, at times, attempts to convey his toughness by speaking in gruff, deep-throated tones not unlike Christian Bale's Batman growl. Collins, as the princess, looks pretty despite a slightly unbecoming orange tan, and she works hard, but the part has been done so often before (she wants more than just marriage, she’s handy with a blade) that it's hard for her to be particularly memorable. Ditto for West as the sleazy villain and Hinds as the noble-but-world-weary king. Strong’s good enough as the supernatural uber-villain (goodness, will this man ever play a good guy?). And Willem Dafoe and Samantha Morton (as Dafoe’s clan leader’s estranged daughter) manage effectively through the motion capture animation.
That the key pieces of the mythology, with the planets, supernatural forces, Goddess, and whatnot, are all too bungled, is another of Carter's problems.. I couldn’t give much more of a complex plot synopsis if I wanted to, because I didn’t understand much of these important elements—it doesn’t help when it has to sound all alien-y (code for hard-to-pronounce).
No, John Carter wasn’t perfect, and no, it wasn’t particularly original, but it erased two hours and twelve minutes with ease, and it has one of those endings that you wouldn’t at all mind seeing go on just a few minutes longer. The key couple doesn’t have much chemistry, and if you can guess every beat of the last thirty minutes, you won’t be the only one, but Carter isn’t taking itself too seriously. I floated out of the theater and enjoyed the ride home because I got the action, adventure, and fantastical derring-do I’d been seeking. Coulda been better, but I’ll take it.
Content?
Family-friendly, for the most part. A hint of Carter’s tragic past is revealed, and there is a fair amount of violence, but, except for some blue alien blood, it’s pretty gore-free. There’s no swearing, and just a bit of kissing. Nothing to panic about.
Bottom Line (I promise):
It probably won’t knock your socks off with its acting or originality, but Carter scores points for being entertaining; if you just can’t stay out of theaters any longer in your desperate wait for The Hunger Games, this action-packed epic makes for an interesting option.
JOHN CARTER (2012)
Based on the book 'A Princess of Mars' by Edgar Rice Burroughs
Directed by Andrew Stanton
Written by Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon
Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action and gore, and brief disturbing images
Length: 132 minutes
Friday, March 9, 2012
KICK-ASS
Kick-Ass (2010)
Grade: B
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Mark Strong, Chloe Grace Moretz, Lyndsey Fonseca, Nicholas Cage, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse
PREMISE: A young comic book fan's decision to buy a mask and a costume and try being an actual superhero backfires, bringing startling and unintended consequences on himself and his friends.
RATED R for strong bloody violence, strong language (including graphic sexual references), strong sexual content, and a scene of torture
I hope Quentin Tarantino has seen Kick-Ass.
Matthew Vaughn’s 2010 film—which he and Jane Goldman adapted from the graphic novel by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.—owes a lot to Tarantino’s quirky, bloody-but-irreverently-tongue-in-cheek style, best displayed in movies like the Kill Bill saga and Inglorious Basterds. Centered around a young man (Aaron Johnson) who decides to try becoming a masked crime stopper even though he has no powers, and subsequently stumbles into a war between a local crime lord (Mark Strong) and a pair of fellow masked vigilantes (Nicholas Cage and Chloe Moretz), Kick-Ass does have the joyous soul of something “different” like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. However, because the material here is considerably darker and grimmer than that of Scott Pilgrim, it also has an uneven feel, with some nastier incidents likely to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Dave (Johnson) is your average high school nerd, who lives and dies by the comic book and has crushes on pretty much every female he sees (including his teachers). But after he and a buddy are mugged-and none of the watching spectators help them-Dave decides to try something--he orders a green and yellow spandex suit-complete with mask and weapons-off eBay and, after brainstorming names, declares himself the superhero Kick-Ass. His first attempt at stopping crime doesn’t exactly go as planned, but when he saves a random stranger from three marauding thugs a few weeks later, and the patrons of a nearby diner record him on their phones, he becomes rock star-famous—on the news, the Internet, and even the comic book stores he haunts—and his newfound swagger even gets him in with drop-dead-gorgeous peer Katie (Lyndsey Fonseca).
Everything is not what it seems, though. Since he wears a mask during his exploits, Dave is not famous—Kick-Ass is—and Katie has taken a liking to him, he finds, because he gives off such unsexy vibes that she thinks he’s gay and she’s “always wanted a special gay friend”. When Dave’s newly-close connection to Katie leads him to realize a man at her volunteer center has been bothering her, he springs into action (as Kick-Ass, of course). The man turns out to be a drug-dealer, and Dave's intrusion in his and his fellow hoods' money-counting/drinking binge is not taken kindly, but Dave is saved in the knick of time by Hit-Girl (Moretz). An obvious preteen, sporting bright purple hair, tight leather get-ups and a potty mouth, Hit-Girl (literally) takes apart the gang, aided by her father, Big Daddy (Cage), a Batman impersonator. Daddy, it turns out, is out to get back at mobster Frank D'Amico (Strong), the man who ruined his career, and life, back when he was a policeman, and he’s been raising his little girl to be the ultimate combatant, down to teaching her to learn how to take a bullet in the chest—when wearing a bulletproof vest, of course. But Big Daddy’s exploits are making headlines, too, tipping off D’Amico-and his desperate-to-prove-himself son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse)-that all masked vigilantes in the city need to go.
While reading critics’ reviews of Kick-Ass, I read some praise and some complaints. The complaints, of course, were severe, taking shots at the movie’s devotion to bloody violence, filthy language, and seeming carelessness about what it puts onscreen. But what doesn’t make sense, in that regard, is that all those critics adored Tarantino’s Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds-among others-two films that balanced what you and I might call “seriousness” with shocking, unmitigated violence and casual vulgarity, even if they did so with flair. Heck, the bloodiest scene in Kill Bill was presented in anime, for crying out loud, and you watched men get their brains beaten out with a bat-and a woman getting slowly strangled to death-in Basterds. Yes, both those previous films shocked me, and, yes, I was surprised by the seriousness of Kick-Ass’s material, but, in my opinion, why not call a spade a spade?
The main argument against Kick-Ass is, of course, also the film’s biggest calling card—that a good amount of the bloodletting-and cursing (including four-letter words that start with ‘f’ and ‘c’) is done by Moretz, who was eleven when she filmed her scenes as Hit-Girl. I’ll admit that I was unnerved by her use of some of those words-and I find it extremely hard to imagine her parents consenting to her playing this particular part-but the fact that her character offs people didn’t alarm me: lately, there’s been a premium on youths in combat in the movies, in films as varied as The Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter and the upcoming Hunger Games. Yes, Kick-Ass is much bloodier than any of those films, but I think people just like to complain--again, they totally consented to the unblinking slaughter in films like Inglorious Basterds. For the record, Moretz is dynamite, despite the nastiness of some of her material—you’re totally rooting for her to save the day in one scene, gaping at her incredible abilities in at least two others, and nearly crying for her in another. The actress (for whom her heart-stealing role in Hugo was clearly a walk in the park after this) nimbly navigates all waters, and comes out a big winner.
Johnson gets a lot of big laughs from his typical nerd-character-awkwardness, and sardonic, cutting voiceover (think American Beauty or Payback) he’s endearing as both Dave and Kick-Ass. Strong, who has also played villains recently in Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood, is super-intense as the villain; he could easily have strolled in from a Martin Scorcese picture. And the film’s biggest star, Cage, makes a positive impression-albeit in a strange role-bringing his usual intensity but also some of the film's main comic relief, courtesy of a jerky, slow-burn Adam West-inspired voice. It's an odd role, but it represents a big step up from the kind of crap he’s been making lately (Ghost Rider, Season of the Witch, Drive Angry, Knowing, Wicker Man, etc…).
So, do I recommend it?Um….good question. Not quite as stylistically-bizarre (or appealing, depending on how you view it) as Scott Pilgrim, but far less family-friendly; this movie is for those who are daring, not at all squeamish, and willing to watch something with a hard edge. Basically, if you’ve loved the films of Tarantino and Scorcese, you’ll like this. This is no Spiderman or Captain America (or some other mainstream, likeable superhero flick). Keep the kids, and even some of the teenagers, far away. As for content, Kick-Ass is bloody, profane, not at all shy about presenting sexual material, and contains a late scene of beating/torture that flirts with being outright unwatchable.
Bottom Line (I promise):A little girl tears people apart and says naughty words-that’s probably what you’ll remember. There are laughs and endearing characters and even a happy ending, but Kick-Ass is not for the faint of heart.
Kick-Ass (2010)
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Based on the comic books by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.
Written by Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman
Rated R for strong bloody violence, strong sexual content, language (including graphic sexual references) and a scene of torture
Length: 117 minutes
Grade: B
Starring: Aaron Johnson, Mark Strong, Chloe Grace Moretz, Lyndsey Fonseca, Nicholas Cage, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse
PREMISE: A young comic book fan's decision to buy a mask and a costume and try being an actual superhero backfires, bringing startling and unintended consequences on himself and his friends.
RATED R for strong bloody violence, strong language (including graphic sexual references), strong sexual content, and a scene of torture
I hope Quentin Tarantino has seen Kick-Ass.
Matthew Vaughn’s 2010 film—which he and Jane Goldman adapted from the graphic novel by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.—owes a lot to Tarantino’s quirky, bloody-but-irreverently-tongue-in-cheek style, best displayed in movies like the Kill Bill saga and Inglorious Basterds. Centered around a young man (Aaron Johnson) who decides to try becoming a masked crime stopper even though he has no powers, and subsequently stumbles into a war between a local crime lord (Mark Strong) and a pair of fellow masked vigilantes (Nicholas Cage and Chloe Moretz), Kick-Ass does have the joyous soul of something “different” like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. However, because the material here is considerably darker and grimmer than that of Scott Pilgrim, it also has an uneven feel, with some nastier incidents likely to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Dave (Johnson) is your average high school nerd, who lives and dies by the comic book and has crushes on pretty much every female he sees (including his teachers). But after he and a buddy are mugged-and none of the watching spectators help them-Dave decides to try something--he orders a green and yellow spandex suit-complete with mask and weapons-off eBay and, after brainstorming names, declares himself the superhero Kick-Ass. His first attempt at stopping crime doesn’t exactly go as planned, but when he saves a random stranger from three marauding thugs a few weeks later, and the patrons of a nearby diner record him on their phones, he becomes rock star-famous—on the news, the Internet, and even the comic book stores he haunts—and his newfound swagger even gets him in with drop-dead-gorgeous peer Katie (Lyndsey Fonseca).
Everything is not what it seems, though. Since he wears a mask during his exploits, Dave is not famous—Kick-Ass is—and Katie has taken a liking to him, he finds, because he gives off such unsexy vibes that she thinks he’s gay and she’s “always wanted a special gay friend”. When Dave’s newly-close connection to Katie leads him to realize a man at her volunteer center has been bothering her, he springs into action (as Kick-Ass, of course). The man turns out to be a drug-dealer, and Dave's intrusion in his and his fellow hoods' money-counting/drinking binge is not taken kindly, but Dave is saved in the knick of time by Hit-Girl (Moretz). An obvious preteen, sporting bright purple hair, tight leather get-ups and a potty mouth, Hit-Girl (literally) takes apart the gang, aided by her father, Big Daddy (Cage), a Batman impersonator. Daddy, it turns out, is out to get back at mobster Frank D'Amico (Strong), the man who ruined his career, and life, back when he was a policeman, and he’s been raising his little girl to be the ultimate combatant, down to teaching her to learn how to take a bullet in the chest—when wearing a bulletproof vest, of course. But Big Daddy’s exploits are making headlines, too, tipping off D’Amico-and his desperate-to-prove-himself son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse)-that all masked vigilantes in the city need to go.
While reading critics’ reviews of Kick-Ass, I read some praise and some complaints. The complaints, of course, were severe, taking shots at the movie’s devotion to bloody violence, filthy language, and seeming carelessness about what it puts onscreen. But what doesn’t make sense, in that regard, is that all those critics adored Tarantino’s Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds-among others-two films that balanced what you and I might call “seriousness” with shocking, unmitigated violence and casual vulgarity, even if they did so with flair. Heck, the bloodiest scene in Kill Bill was presented in anime, for crying out loud, and you watched men get their brains beaten out with a bat-and a woman getting slowly strangled to death-in Basterds. Yes, both those previous films shocked me, and, yes, I was surprised by the seriousness of Kick-Ass’s material, but, in my opinion, why not call a spade a spade?
The main argument against Kick-Ass is, of course, also the film’s biggest calling card—that a good amount of the bloodletting-and cursing (including four-letter words that start with ‘f’ and ‘c’) is done by Moretz, who was eleven when she filmed her scenes as Hit-Girl. I’ll admit that I was unnerved by her use of some of those words-and I find it extremely hard to imagine her parents consenting to her playing this particular part-but the fact that her character offs people didn’t alarm me: lately, there’s been a premium on youths in combat in the movies, in films as varied as The Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter and the upcoming Hunger Games. Yes, Kick-Ass is much bloodier than any of those films, but I think people just like to complain--again, they totally consented to the unblinking slaughter in films like Inglorious Basterds. For the record, Moretz is dynamite, despite the nastiness of some of her material—you’re totally rooting for her to save the day in one scene, gaping at her incredible abilities in at least two others, and nearly crying for her in another. The actress (for whom her heart-stealing role in Hugo was clearly a walk in the park after this) nimbly navigates all waters, and comes out a big winner.
Johnson gets a lot of big laughs from his typical nerd-character-awkwardness, and sardonic, cutting voiceover (think American Beauty or Payback) he’s endearing as both Dave and Kick-Ass. Strong, who has also played villains recently in Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood, is super-intense as the villain; he could easily have strolled in from a Martin Scorcese picture. And the film’s biggest star, Cage, makes a positive impression-albeit in a strange role-bringing his usual intensity but also some of the film's main comic relief, courtesy of a jerky, slow-burn Adam West-inspired voice. It's an odd role, but it represents a big step up from the kind of crap he’s been making lately (Ghost Rider, Season of the Witch, Drive Angry, Knowing, Wicker Man, etc…).
So, do I recommend it?Um….good question. Not quite as stylistically-bizarre (or appealing, depending on how you view it) as Scott Pilgrim, but far less family-friendly; this movie is for those who are daring, not at all squeamish, and willing to watch something with a hard edge. Basically, if you’ve loved the films of Tarantino and Scorcese, you’ll like this. This is no Spiderman or Captain America (or some other mainstream, likeable superhero flick). Keep the kids, and even some of the teenagers, far away. As for content, Kick-Ass is bloody, profane, not at all shy about presenting sexual material, and contains a late scene of beating/torture that flirts with being outright unwatchable.
Bottom Line (I promise):A little girl tears people apart and says naughty words-that’s probably what you’ll remember. There are laughs and endearing characters and even a happy ending, but Kick-Ass is not for the faint of heart.
Kick-Ass (2010)
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Based on the comic books by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr.
Written by Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman
Rated R for strong bloody violence, strong sexual content, language (including graphic sexual references) and a scene of torture
Length: 117 minutes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)