rating: ****
the story: In the Old West, a young man goes on a quest to rescue the love of his life.
review: I've been a fan of Robert Pattinson since he showed up for a minor role in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005). He later made his name in the Twilight movies, and has been working steadily in low profile starring roles ever since. With last year's Good Time, Pattinson started receiving some critical appreciation. He's become a kind of new Leonardo DiCaprio, whom he most closely resembles in style in Damsel, although his role choices have started to look a lot like the young Brad Pitt. Little wonder that he's gone in either direction; hard to find any actors with more interesting careers than theirs, in an era that has increasingly challenged the continued validity of the lead actor concept.
Damsel seems to have confounded most viewers. Is it meant to be a straight western? If so, why is Pattinson so buggy in the lead role? Or is it supposed to be a farce? Then why all the nasty violence? This ain't exactly Deadpool. So what's the deal?
A damn fine piece of filmmaking, one of the more interesting efforts I've seen in recent years. Directors David(who doubles as one of the main characters, a parson who's consistently in way over his head) and Nathan Zellner have no previous widely-known films under their belts (I know movies pretty well; their work seems to have fallen in the extremely limited release realm before Damsel), but their work here is a true revelation. Beautiful cinematography on top of everything else, it's their storytelling that most singles them out.
And what exactly is the story of Damsel? Because about halfway through, it completely switches tracks! Pattinson's character is dead, and everything the story had suggested about him turns out to be false, and...we're never really given clarification. It ends up being about Mia Wasikowska's "damsel" as she struggles to reclaim her sanity. Pattinson shows up out of nowhere, suddenly less a daring-do romantic hero and more a psychotic murderer, who kills her husband before committing suicide once it becomes clear he never really had Wasikowska's heart...Yeah!
It seems to be completely nuts. But in such a good way! The lack of answers actually works in Damsel's favor, ambiguity that's far too rare in mainstream movies (unless you're Christopher Nolan). Pattinson is positively magnetic in his role, seems to have been positively born to play it. Wasikowska, who has yet to have been fully embraced by critics despite years of excellent work, more than carries the movie in his absence. If this is an experience that confounds viewers, it's also one that is difficult to ignore, and hopefully helps everyone involved attract greater notice in the future.
Of course, Damsel gets a lot of extra credit for me from the opening sequence with Robert Forster, who's somehow never gotten the attention he deserved from his rediscovery in Jackie Brown (1997), where he effortlessly commands the screen with his unique charisma. Yeah, his presence also helps set the tone for this one.
But the movie itself is so peculiarly compelling, that Damsel ought to at least earn a cult following. It's like Seth MacFarlane's post-modern western A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014), but as a true work of art.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Friday, November 23, 2018
Heat (1995)
rating: ****
the story: An epic showdown between cop and criminal.
review: Long billed as the long-awaited pairing of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino onscreen together (they previously both appeared in Godfather Part II, but in separate sequences), Heat is actually an embarrassment of riches, in hindsight, full of actors who would populate the big and small screens for years to come. And it's arguably the predecessor to The Dark Knight in terms of action movies.
Here's the talent assembled for Heat: De Niro, Pacino. Val Kilmer and Natalie Portman. Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd. Jon Voight (who like Kilmer sports long hair for the movie). Tom Sizemore. Mykelti Williamson, who the year previous had his breakthrough appearance as Bubba in Forrest Gump, and would later play another cop in the underappreciated TV gem Boomtown. Dennis Haysbert, years before playing a president in 24, or helping us be in good hands with All-State. Danny Trejo. William Fichtner, who still has yet to be properly noticed. Wes Studi, Hank Azaria, Xander Berkeley (who also later appeared in 24). And Jeremy Piven, another talent who deserves much greater recognition for his screen presence.
And they're all here! Just spending the time enjoying them make their appearances, large and small, is worth watching this one.
Of course, it circles back to De Niro and Pacino. De Niro is in subdued mode, not the outsize gangster he is in Scorsese movies but more as he appears in Tarantino's Jackie Brown, two years later. Pacino, as he often does, chews a lot of scenery, but when it counts, he matches De Niro's mood, and it's everything you always heard Heat was. These are screen giants, and their epic showdown is exactly what it was always supposed to be.
But Michael Mann, who made his name in television, including Miami Vice (which he later adapted to the big screen in the same mold as Heat), isn't merely interested in acting. He's got a big action movie in mind, in the kind of scope he basically perfects, in the years before superheroes came to dominate the genre, in the years after the '80s saw them dominated by action stars. This is an experience that crosses all boundaries.
And yeah, it's exactly the kind of experience that Christopher Nolan later duplicated for The Dark Knight. The hype and magnetism of Heath Ledger's Joker was what everyone talks about, but Nolan was the first director since Mann to nail this kind of action movie. And at its heart, Dark Knight is more this kind of action movie than it is a superhero movie, and I think that's what Nolan realized, and was going for, and what audiences liked so much about it, too.
If Heat doesn't get talked about enough these days as a milestone of the '90s, and filmmaking in general, it's because it's remembered now for the De Niro/Pacino pairing, and the fact that after this their careers were never quite the same again. De Niro reached a dramatic peak, and went in the direction of comedy, and Pacino became dismissed for what's since become best illustrated by Nicolas Cage, the idea that acting style is suddenly a crime, where the idea of movie stars has slipped by the wayside. Which is ironic, as the dawn of the modern blockbuster begins with a movie where the acting is, distractedly, the whole point, by observers who can't quite keep the whole scope of the experience in mind.
the story: An epic showdown between cop and criminal.
review: Long billed as the long-awaited pairing of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino onscreen together (they previously both appeared in Godfather Part II, but in separate sequences), Heat is actually an embarrassment of riches, in hindsight, full of actors who would populate the big and small screens for years to come. And it's arguably the predecessor to The Dark Knight in terms of action movies.
Here's the talent assembled for Heat: De Niro, Pacino. Val Kilmer and Natalie Portman. Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd. Jon Voight (who like Kilmer sports long hair for the movie). Tom Sizemore. Mykelti Williamson, who the year previous had his breakthrough appearance as Bubba in Forrest Gump, and would later play another cop in the underappreciated TV gem Boomtown. Dennis Haysbert, years before playing a president in 24, or helping us be in good hands with All-State. Danny Trejo. William Fichtner, who still has yet to be properly noticed. Wes Studi, Hank Azaria, Xander Berkeley (who also later appeared in 24). And Jeremy Piven, another talent who deserves much greater recognition for his screen presence.
And they're all here! Just spending the time enjoying them make their appearances, large and small, is worth watching this one.
Of course, it circles back to De Niro and Pacino. De Niro is in subdued mode, not the outsize gangster he is in Scorsese movies but more as he appears in Tarantino's Jackie Brown, two years later. Pacino, as he often does, chews a lot of scenery, but when it counts, he matches De Niro's mood, and it's everything you always heard Heat was. These are screen giants, and their epic showdown is exactly what it was always supposed to be.
But Michael Mann, who made his name in television, including Miami Vice (which he later adapted to the big screen in the same mold as Heat), isn't merely interested in acting. He's got a big action movie in mind, in the kind of scope he basically perfects, in the years before superheroes came to dominate the genre, in the years after the '80s saw them dominated by action stars. This is an experience that crosses all boundaries.
And yeah, it's exactly the kind of experience that Christopher Nolan later duplicated for The Dark Knight. The hype and magnetism of Heath Ledger's Joker was what everyone talks about, but Nolan was the first director since Mann to nail this kind of action movie. And at its heart, Dark Knight is more this kind of action movie than it is a superhero movie, and I think that's what Nolan realized, and was going for, and what audiences liked so much about it, too.
If Heat doesn't get talked about enough these days as a milestone of the '90s, and filmmaking in general, it's because it's remembered now for the De Niro/Pacino pairing, and the fact that after this their careers were never quite the same again. De Niro reached a dramatic peak, and went in the direction of comedy, and Pacino became dismissed for what's since become best illustrated by Nicolas Cage, the idea that acting style is suddenly a crime, where the idea of movie stars has slipped by the wayside. Which is ironic, as the dawn of the modern blockbuster begins with a movie where the acting is, distractedly, the whole point, by observers who can't quite keep the whole scope of the experience in mind.
The Old Man & the Gun (2018)
rating: ****
the story: An old bank robber proves charm is his greatest weapon.
review: I've become a huge fan of director David Lowery. Last year's A Ghost Story was a creative masterpiece and career highlight following previous films promising great potential (Ain't Them Bodies Saints, the live action Pete's Dragon). However, he's one of the young directors of his generation who's found it tough to find much popular, much less visible critical success. Scoring what's billed as Robert Redford's final role is probably a good way to get some attention. The results are once again worthy of the potential.
Redford was at the head of another creative generation, one of the brightest acting talents to come out of the '60s, where he made one of his earliest standout films, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, where he first teamed up with Paul Newman (they struck again with The Sting), and set the tone for what Lowery evokes with The Old Man & the Gun. Redford made a career out of his effortless charm. His most recent mainstream role was as a bad guy in the MCU, the Marvel superhero Avengers franchise. I feared that this was how younger moviegoers were going to end up remembering him, and maybe they still will, but at least now he gets to go out on a high note, one that's all his own.
The idea of the "good" rogue is at least as old as Robin Hood, the criminal as likable, even defensible. Casey Affleck, who also appeared in Ghost Story and Ain't Them Bodies Saint, and as such has easily become a signature Lowery collaborator (he starred with Rooney Mara in them, and I wish she'd appeared in this one, too), plays a cop who eventually sympathizes with Redford's bank robber after spending most off the movie trying to catch him. Tom Waits (arguably continuing to reap the benefits of being Heath Ledger's purported model for his iconic Joker in The Dark Knight) and Danny Glover play Redford's fellow crooks, while Sissy Spacek plays a woman who falls for his charms in a purely romantic sense.
By the time Lowery allows himself to become showy (the whole thing is actually his filmmaking as more accessible, beyond Redford's appeal, than he's been in the past), playfully chronicling Redford's many jailbreaks, setting up the ending, you can appreciate the subtlety of the storytelling even more. A lot of other directors would've dwelt on that element a lot longer, and thus lost the point, and taken the focus off of Redford himself. But we do get a brief look at vintage Redford screen footage during the montage, and that's another great way to help say goodbye. In an era where we're suddenly resurrecting dead actors via CGI seemingly without batting an eye, remembering we have old footage available, and knowing how to use it, seems a lot more, well, artful.
And "artful" is what The Old Man & the Gun is all about, the art of moviemaking, the old charms, the timeless charms, and adding to them, explaining them, maybe.
the story: An old bank robber proves charm is his greatest weapon.
review: I've become a huge fan of director David Lowery. Last year's A Ghost Story was a creative masterpiece and career highlight following previous films promising great potential (Ain't Them Bodies Saints, the live action Pete's Dragon). However, he's one of the young directors of his generation who's found it tough to find much popular, much less visible critical success. Scoring what's billed as Robert Redford's final role is probably a good way to get some attention. The results are once again worthy of the potential.
Redford was at the head of another creative generation, one of the brightest acting talents to come out of the '60s, where he made one of his earliest standout films, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, where he first teamed up with Paul Newman (they struck again with The Sting), and set the tone for what Lowery evokes with The Old Man & the Gun. Redford made a career out of his effortless charm. His most recent mainstream role was as a bad guy in the MCU, the Marvel superhero Avengers franchise. I feared that this was how younger moviegoers were going to end up remembering him, and maybe they still will, but at least now he gets to go out on a high note, one that's all his own.
The idea of the "good" rogue is at least as old as Robin Hood, the criminal as likable, even defensible. Casey Affleck, who also appeared in Ghost Story and Ain't Them Bodies Saint, and as such has easily become a signature Lowery collaborator (he starred with Rooney Mara in them, and I wish she'd appeared in this one, too), plays a cop who eventually sympathizes with Redford's bank robber after spending most off the movie trying to catch him. Tom Waits (arguably continuing to reap the benefits of being Heath Ledger's purported model for his iconic Joker in The Dark Knight) and Danny Glover play Redford's fellow crooks, while Sissy Spacek plays a woman who falls for his charms in a purely romantic sense.
By the time Lowery allows himself to become showy (the whole thing is actually his filmmaking as more accessible, beyond Redford's appeal, than he's been in the past), playfully chronicling Redford's many jailbreaks, setting up the ending, you can appreciate the subtlety of the storytelling even more. A lot of other directors would've dwelt on that element a lot longer, and thus lost the point, and taken the focus off of Redford himself. But we do get a brief look at vintage Redford screen footage during the montage, and that's another great way to help say goodbye. In an era where we're suddenly resurrecting dead actors via CGI seemingly without batting an eye, remembering we have old footage available, and knowing how to use it, seems a lot more, well, artful.
And "artful" is what The Old Man & the Gun is all about, the art of moviemaking, the old charms, the timeless charms, and adding to them, explaining them, maybe.
Gringo (2018)
rating: ****
the story: A ruthless company attempts to use one of its most loyal employees as a patsy in Mexico.
review: When I saw the trailer for Gringo, I thought it looked like a delightful farce. I was interested in it anyway, as it starred Charlize Theron and Joel Edgerton, two of my favorite modern actors. But more intriguing, from the trailer, was David Oyelowo, the would-be patsy whose reactions were hilariously over-the-top to the chaos happening around him.
And that's what you get the movie itself, too, and that's more than satisfying. The best part is that it casts Oyelowo in an entirely new light, for me. I was previously exposed to him only, as far as I know, in Selma, where I thought he was horribly miscast as Martin Luther King, Jr., and as a result I didn't think much of him as an actor in general. But Gringo proves me wrong. Selma's problems don't seem to have been Oyelowo's problems at all, its creative shortcomings a result of the creative process. Gringo is what the creative process working the right way looks like.
At heart it's a massive criticism of how greedy the business sector continues to be, long after the supposed "greed decade" of the '80s. Theron and Edgerton (whose brother Nash directed the movie) play the business colleagues trying to save their own skins at Oyelowo's expense. Edgerton famously has a passive face, expressionless, and I think it held him back early in his career, but he's managed to work around it thanks to his considerable acting chops (best exemplified, I think, in Warrior and Exodus: Gods and Kings), to the point where he can guide his own career now. His ruthless businessman in Gringo in particular uses his peculiar screen presence to full advantage, that passive face playing into is callousness as he tries to have his cake and eat it, too, backstabbing the haplessly loyal and trusting Oyelowo (until Oyelowo realizes that he's been had and turns the tables on him).
Sharlto Copley, who moreso than director Neill Blomkamp managed to parlay District 9 into a fascinating career, plays Edgerton and Theron's muscle who ends up siding with Oyelowo, and is another great presence in the movie. There's also Thandie Newton (can't believe she was ever allowed to vanish from the forefront), Amanda Seyfried, and Alan Ruck in supporting roles.
Gringo is a movie I think could very easily settle into a cult favorite, and a career highlight for a number of its actors, especially Oyelowo.
the story: A ruthless company attempts to use one of its most loyal employees as a patsy in Mexico.
review: When I saw the trailer for Gringo, I thought it looked like a delightful farce. I was interested in it anyway, as it starred Charlize Theron and Joel Edgerton, two of my favorite modern actors. But more intriguing, from the trailer, was David Oyelowo, the would-be patsy whose reactions were hilariously over-the-top to the chaos happening around him.
And that's what you get the movie itself, too, and that's more than satisfying. The best part is that it casts Oyelowo in an entirely new light, for me. I was previously exposed to him only, as far as I know, in Selma, where I thought he was horribly miscast as Martin Luther King, Jr., and as a result I didn't think much of him as an actor in general. But Gringo proves me wrong. Selma's problems don't seem to have been Oyelowo's problems at all, its creative shortcomings a result of the creative process. Gringo is what the creative process working the right way looks like.
At heart it's a massive criticism of how greedy the business sector continues to be, long after the supposed "greed decade" of the '80s. Theron and Edgerton (whose brother Nash directed the movie) play the business colleagues trying to save their own skins at Oyelowo's expense. Edgerton famously has a passive face, expressionless, and I think it held him back early in his career, but he's managed to work around it thanks to his considerable acting chops (best exemplified, I think, in Warrior and Exodus: Gods and Kings), to the point where he can guide his own career now. His ruthless businessman in Gringo in particular uses his peculiar screen presence to full advantage, that passive face playing into is callousness as he tries to have his cake and eat it, too, backstabbing the haplessly loyal and trusting Oyelowo (until Oyelowo realizes that he's been had and turns the tables on him).
Sharlto Copley, who moreso than director Neill Blomkamp managed to parlay District 9 into a fascinating career, plays Edgerton and Theron's muscle who ends up siding with Oyelowo, and is another great presence in the movie. There's also Thandie Newton (can't believe she was ever allowed to vanish from the forefront), Amanda Seyfried, and Alan Ruck in supporting roles.
Gringo is a movie I think could very easily settle into a cult favorite, and a career highlight for a number of its actors, especially Oyelowo.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Liberal Arts (2012)
rating: ****
the story: A thirty-something unexpectedly reconnects with his college self when visiting a retiring professor.
review: Josh Radnor's bid to be recognized in the same league as Zach Braff, Liberal Arts is the kind of small film that reminds you why small films are important, too. Like Braff (best known for Scrubs before making a brief transition into film glory with Garden State), Radnor is best known for his starring role in a sitcom (How I Met Your Mother) but subsequently made a push into making his own movies. Liberal Arts was the second of two movies he's directed to date.
It's the story of the struggle to reconcile real life with the kind experienced in college. Radnor's character feels lost in the real world. Everything he valued in college seems meaningless outside of it. At college, literature and poetry didn't feel out of place.
Any good review will tell you why the reviewer feels connected to that particular material. Radnor's thoughts are much my own. Even working at a bookstore for five years wasn't anywhere close to the literary immersion I experienced at college. I often found myself wondering who these book people were who showed up at the store, because I never really recognized them. Sure, they read, but they didn't seem to feel any of it. It was just an obligation to them. For a lot of students, reading is an obligation, too, but the sheer volume of students means there's a greater chance of finding, inside and out of the classroom, other people who get it, who aren't just going through the motions.
But Liberal Arts ultimately concludes that you need to stick your head out of the books, too, and while it's not a new message, and the story feels like a collegiate exercise, it's done with conviction, it feels real. It doesn't attempt to give you all the answers. Like Radnor's work in How I Met Your Mother, it's a subtle reminder that life is a struggle for everyone, but that magic can sometimes happen, too, mostly in the connections we make along the way. Radnor's old professor is played by Richard Jenkins, who has cornered the market on this kind of character, who's aged and agitated, but also a welcome presence, someone you want around. Allison Janney plays Radnor's favorite poetry professor, and while her part is smaller and more stereotypical, even she gets to have an open ending. Zac Efron has a small but memorable part as a kind of spiritual guru, a part he would probably never have played outside of this film. Elizabeth Olsen, the kid sister of the famous twins, had a breakout role as the college girl who nudges Radnor along to better understanding his predicament. Elizabeth Reaser gets to benefit from that as the bookseller who becomes his girlfriend.
Maybe it's a movie that speaks so directly to me, with a lead actor I already like, and so that's why I think it's good. And maybe it's just one of those movies that fills a whole in the cultural narrative, and its value is objectively visible, and you just need someone like me to help point it out. I wish Radnor had gotten to make more movies (there's obviously still time). He and Braff are representing an entire generation, one that can easily get lost in the shuffle, a generation that took a lot of things for granted and started finding out that not everything benefited them the way they thought it would. This is the kind of stuff a previous generation (or two or three) of movie stars got to make whole careers out of. And this is what it looks like today.
the story: A thirty-something unexpectedly reconnects with his college self when visiting a retiring professor.
review: Josh Radnor's bid to be recognized in the same league as Zach Braff, Liberal Arts is the kind of small film that reminds you why small films are important, too. Like Braff (best known for Scrubs before making a brief transition into film glory with Garden State), Radnor is best known for his starring role in a sitcom (How I Met Your Mother) but subsequently made a push into making his own movies. Liberal Arts was the second of two movies he's directed to date.
It's the story of the struggle to reconcile real life with the kind experienced in college. Radnor's character feels lost in the real world. Everything he valued in college seems meaningless outside of it. At college, literature and poetry didn't feel out of place.
Any good review will tell you why the reviewer feels connected to that particular material. Radnor's thoughts are much my own. Even working at a bookstore for five years wasn't anywhere close to the literary immersion I experienced at college. I often found myself wondering who these book people were who showed up at the store, because I never really recognized them. Sure, they read, but they didn't seem to feel any of it. It was just an obligation to them. For a lot of students, reading is an obligation, too, but the sheer volume of students means there's a greater chance of finding, inside and out of the classroom, other people who get it, who aren't just going through the motions.
But Liberal Arts ultimately concludes that you need to stick your head out of the books, too, and while it's not a new message, and the story feels like a collegiate exercise, it's done with conviction, it feels real. It doesn't attempt to give you all the answers. Like Radnor's work in How I Met Your Mother, it's a subtle reminder that life is a struggle for everyone, but that magic can sometimes happen, too, mostly in the connections we make along the way. Radnor's old professor is played by Richard Jenkins, who has cornered the market on this kind of character, who's aged and agitated, but also a welcome presence, someone you want around. Allison Janney plays Radnor's favorite poetry professor, and while her part is smaller and more stereotypical, even she gets to have an open ending. Zac Efron has a small but memorable part as a kind of spiritual guru, a part he would probably never have played outside of this film. Elizabeth Olsen, the kid sister of the famous twins, had a breakout role as the college girl who nudges Radnor along to better understanding his predicament. Elizabeth Reaser gets to benefit from that as the bookseller who becomes his girlfriend.
Maybe it's a movie that speaks so directly to me, with a lead actor I already like, and so that's why I think it's good. And maybe it's just one of those movies that fills a whole in the cultural narrative, and its value is objectively visible, and you just need someone like me to help point it out. I wish Radnor had gotten to make more movies (there's obviously still time). He and Braff are representing an entire generation, one that can easily get lost in the shuffle, a generation that took a lot of things for granted and started finding out that not everything benefited them the way they thought it would. This is the kind of stuff a previous generation (or two or three) of movie stars got to make whole careers out of. And this is what it looks like today.
Thursday, October 11, 2018
My Neighbor Totoro (1988)
rating: ****
the story: Sisters attempting to handle the illness of their mother find unexpected solace in a magical creature.
review: So, my niece has become positively obsessed with My Neighbor Totoro in recent months. My relationship with the works of Hayao Miyazaki is not perfect by any means, but thanks to repeated viewings of Totoro, I think I've finally found the movie that at last helps me see the magic that has helped him become the Japanese version of Disney.
It's perhaps worth noting that the version of Totoro I've been watching is a Disney product, the 2005 English translation with Tim Daly as the dad and sisters Elle and Dakota Fanning as Mei and Satsuki, respectively. Mei's the younger of the two and responsible for all the best moments in the movie, including and most importantly discovering Tororo in the first place. Totoro, unlike virtually everything else I've discovered in Miyazaki movies, is a harmless, lovable giant ball of fur. Miyazaki appears to my untrained eye an animated disciple of the peculiar, post-WWII, Godzilla-fueled purveyor of monster imagery in modern Japanese pop culture. The wider anime and manga material around him doesn't really match his depth or ambition, which is probably half the reason Miyazaki began to stand out in the first place, but curiously Totoro is more like that stuff than his typical work.
Besides Totoro is the Catbus, which is also entirely innocuous and unquestioningly helpful in Mei's adventures. Mei and her sister get to be typical little girls for most of the movie. They move into a new home at the beginning, and their first discovery is the presence of soot sprites (or gremlins), which Mei eventually tries to capture with an enthusiastic handclap (no luck, alas, just soot). They moved to be closer to the hospital where their mother has been recovering when an undisclosed illness. My only real criticism of Totoro is the ill-defined nature of the mother's predicament. It's tough to compare with something like A Monster Calls, which tackles a similar story with far more gusto.
But clearly there's whimsy and fanciful spirit in Totoro that A Monster Calls can't match, either, a perfect encapsulation, in some ways, of childhood, of its inherent magic, that even Disney and Pixar have never been able to capture.
So maybe in time I'll forget my quibble. My Neighbor Totoro might be an unqualified classic. Hail Miyazaki!
the story: Sisters attempting to handle the illness of their mother find unexpected solace in a magical creature.
review: So, my niece has become positively obsessed with My Neighbor Totoro in recent months. My relationship with the works of Hayao Miyazaki is not perfect by any means, but thanks to repeated viewings of Totoro, I think I've finally found the movie that at last helps me see the magic that has helped him become the Japanese version of Disney.
It's perhaps worth noting that the version of Totoro I've been watching is a Disney product, the 2005 English translation with Tim Daly as the dad and sisters Elle and Dakota Fanning as Mei and Satsuki, respectively. Mei's the younger of the two and responsible for all the best moments in the movie, including and most importantly discovering Tororo in the first place. Totoro, unlike virtually everything else I've discovered in Miyazaki movies, is a harmless, lovable giant ball of fur. Miyazaki appears to my untrained eye an animated disciple of the peculiar, post-WWII, Godzilla-fueled purveyor of monster imagery in modern Japanese pop culture. The wider anime and manga material around him doesn't really match his depth or ambition, which is probably half the reason Miyazaki began to stand out in the first place, but curiously Totoro is more like that stuff than his typical work.
Besides Totoro is the Catbus, which is also entirely innocuous and unquestioningly helpful in Mei's adventures. Mei and her sister get to be typical little girls for most of the movie. They move into a new home at the beginning, and their first discovery is the presence of soot sprites (or gremlins), which Mei eventually tries to capture with an enthusiastic handclap (no luck, alas, just soot). They moved to be closer to the hospital where their mother has been recovering when an undisclosed illness. My only real criticism of Totoro is the ill-defined nature of the mother's predicament. It's tough to compare with something like A Monster Calls, which tackles a similar story with far more gusto.
But clearly there's whimsy and fanciful spirit in Totoro that A Monster Calls can't match, either, a perfect encapsulation, in some ways, of childhood, of its inherent magic, that even Disney and Pixar have never been able to capture.
So maybe in time I'll forget my quibble. My Neighbor Totoro might be an unqualified classic. Hail Miyazaki!
Saturday, September 22, 2018
More from just below the Top Ten Favorites
Recently I offered you a look at my new top ten favorite films, and films that had dropped out from earlier versions of the list. I realized later that I meant to mention another movie, and had neglected another previous top ten entry or three, which would also somewhat mitigate the fact that my favorites are all so recent.
The first movie I'd like to mention is Warrior (2011). This was without a doubt a thunderbolt of an experience for me. I've been a fan of Tom Hardy since I first saw him in a movie, and was glad when he finally began to receive wide acclaim. This was something he did early on in the new era, and on top of that also features a breakout performance from Joe Edgerton as his brother, as they follow different paths to an unlikely confrontation in the finals of a prestigious MMA tournament. Director Gavin O'Connor, who is certainly a favorite of mine and massively underrated, pulls every bit of magic possible, and makes all of the story's twists seem utterly believable. This is a movie that's always at or near my list of all-time favorites.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) is endlessly quotable. I recently finally got older than Dennis. Kudos if you understand that.
Office Space (1999) is another cult comedy worth its weight in quotables. My most frequent reference these days remains the red stapler.
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) is my personal favorite Will Ferrell comedy. It has every moving part possible, including Amy Adams in one of her many pre-breakout supporting roles as well as Sasha Baron Cohen before people who would never get him as a thoroughly obnoxious Frenchman. There are never enough of those! And I'm from French stock!
And with three out of four movies I just listed being comedies, that's pretty much why I was happy to find something like Isle of Dogs this year. Comedy is easy. Classic comedy is hard!
The first movie I'd like to mention is Warrior (2011). This was without a doubt a thunderbolt of an experience for me. I've been a fan of Tom Hardy since I first saw him in a movie, and was glad when he finally began to receive wide acclaim. This was something he did early on in the new era, and on top of that also features a breakout performance from Joe Edgerton as his brother, as they follow different paths to an unlikely confrontation in the finals of a prestigious MMA tournament. Director Gavin O'Connor, who is certainly a favorite of mine and massively underrated, pulls every bit of magic possible, and makes all of the story's twists seem utterly believable. This is a movie that's always at or near my list of all-time favorites.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) is endlessly quotable. I recently finally got older than Dennis. Kudos if you understand that.
Office Space (1999) is another cult comedy worth its weight in quotables. My most frequent reference these days remains the red stapler.
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) is my personal favorite Will Ferrell comedy. It has every moving part possible, including Amy Adams in one of her many pre-breakout supporting roles as well as Sasha Baron Cohen before people who would never get him as a thoroughly obnoxious Frenchman. There are never enough of those! And I'm from French stock!
And with three out of four movies I just listed being comedies, that's pretty much why I was happy to find something like Isle of Dogs this year. Comedy is easy. Classic comedy is hard!
Sunday, September 16, 2018
New Top Ten All-Time Favorites
- Alexander (2004) This has sat atop my list since I originally caught it on DVD in 2005 and watched absolutely mesmerized. Colin Farrell is my favorite actor, and Oliver Stone has directed many excellent movies, and is one of the few directors with a long career I can say I've seen most of his material (the exceptions are his earliest work). The supporting cast around Farrell is superb. There's nothing I don't like about it, and I love that Stone has a lot of competing cuts out there. I've watched all of them, and they all have selling points.
- The Truman Show (1998) Before Farrell, Jim Carrey was my favorite, and this is inarguably his biggest creative statement.
- The Fall (2006) Tarsem is a visionary director years ahead of his time, and this is his masterpiece, finally released in theaters two years later. The more I think about it the more I love it.
- The Dark Knight (2008) Christopher Nolan had been on versions of this list before thanks to Memento, but he's won a permanent foothold, I think, thanks to this expansive, mythical take on modern superheroes, boosted with Heath Ledger's timely (occurring just before his tragic early death) as well as timeless take on the Joker.
- The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) Brad Pitt has long wanted to be seen as more than just a pretty face, and in Jesse James, especially as conceived by Andrew Dominik (based on a book by Ron Hansen), he found his perfect vehicle to perform the barely contained wild man he's long wanted to be.
- Isle of Dogs (2018) Rewatchability, for me, has always been key for determining my favorite movies, and this one has attained that coveted status somewhat unexpectedly. Is it premature to list it among my all-time favorites? I don't think so.
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) The Harry Potter phenomenon happened twice in short order, in book and film. To my mind this particular film entry is the perfect representation of the film series.
- Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) A perfect adventure movie with plenty of charm around Johnny Depp's instantly iconic Jack Sparrow, better balanced than its predecessor and needing less to actually accomplish than its sequel (never mind the later efforts).
- Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) The most ambitious of the whole Star Wars saga because it needed to be, having to justify shaping the prequels around how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader, and accomplishing it in at times literally operatic fashion. Breathtakingly ahead of the curve, even when compared to contemporary efforts like Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy.
- Star Trek: First Contact (1996) I'm a confessed Star Trek fan, so I've not only seen all the movies and TV episodes, I generally like all of them. Not a lot of fans will say that, and too few of them appreciate the perfect Patrick Stewart vehicle that is First Contact.
- The Departed (2006) Leonardo DiCaprio delivers a hugely underrated career-best performance in this Scorsese ensemble filled-to-bursting with a terrific supporting cast. One of the reasons it's slipped for me is that Matt Damon's performance as DiCaprio's rival peaks too early.
- Gladiator (2000) My appreciation hasn't diminished so much as Ridley Scott has done stuff (Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus: Gods and Kings) of similar quality since and it's harder to justify singling this one out.
- Memento (2001) Nolan's breakthrough is still as clever as ever, and with a small but brilliant cast, but he's done bigger and better since.
- The Matrix (1999) My franchise favorites (bunched up mostly at the end of the current list) have expanded since the first in an underappreciated trilogy came out.
- Munich (2005) Nobody but me (like Scorsese and Departed) calls this Spielberg's best. And it has Eric Bana and Daniel Craig (just before Bond) in career-best mode, and a terrifically moody John Williams score...Of all the past favorites hovering just below the top ten, this one's maybe the closest of getting back in.
- Tarantino - Take your pick. For me every new movie seems to become my favorite Tarantino. Kill Bill Vol. 2, then Inglourious Basterds, then Django Unchained...Lately my appreciation of Hateful Eight has risen, and I wondered if that ought to be in the top ten. So maybe in a few years I'll have this figured out.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Moneyball (2011)
rating: ****
the story: Billy Beane starts a revolution in baseball by putting the hard focus on stats.
the review: I was always going to watch Moneyball, but I also put it off for years. The reason for both is the same, and that's Brad Pitt. Pitt's one of the best actors working today, but his best work is retreating into the past, and I always thought Moneyball was the start of that. I mean, what does Moneyball have to say about his talent, his unique charisma? It's a movie about baseball stats!
As it turns out, plenty. It's one of those quintessential Pitt roles. It's a lot like his Jesse James (as in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, one of my all-time favorites). In fact, that's the best reason to watch it. I've got and will go into plenty of others, too, but that's the main reason, and it's the big thrust of the movie itself. It conforms real history into a showcase performance. You can't appreciate the art of filmmaking if you watch a movie like Moneyball and don't understand that. I'm not talking "showcase performance" in that Pitt makes it flashy, but that it's a role that boils down the essence of a Brad Pitt performance and gives it another context. That's a movie star. And maybe that's why Pitt doesn't get a lot of great roles these days, because the focus had shifted far away from movie stars and onto blockbuster franchises (actual and would-be). So far the closest Pitt's come to work like that is the unexpected success of World War Z (which I also got around to watching recently, and enjoyed to a lesser extent).
Billy Beane was the general manager of the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 season the movie covers. The A's were struggling to recover from the loss of three key players from a great 2001 campaign, mostly because of, well, money. In fact, Moneyball is less about baseball than it is about money. It's a Great Recession movie. It's about a small market team struggling to remain competitive against big market teams. The movie uses a graphic that explains the huge disparity between the payroll of the A's and the most successful franchise in MLB history, the New York Yankees. Basically it's about the haves and the have-nots, the 1% and the lower class. (It may be worth remembering that although athletes are paid handsomely today, more in some sports than others, and more with greater visibility, they used to do this as a side hobby back in the day, as in, for no pay. Jim Thorpe got screwed out of Olympic glory because he played baseball for money, but these guys used to struggle on this life. In other words, this isn't to note the irony of people playing baseball complaining about money. Relatively speaking, Moneyball is talking about all the players making minimum wage.)
Moneyball, in effect, is the predecessor of later movies like The Big Short (2015). In that sense it's also relevant to speak of co-writer Aaron Sorkin's involvement. It may not be known as an Aaron Sorkin project, but it's got Sorkin all over it. Above all else, Sorkin is always interested in trying to riddle out why something's happened. That's The West Wing, trying to figure out why politics remained popular despite how divisive they had become and were going to remain long after the TV series ended. That's The Social Network, trying to figure out how Facebook became so big despite its humbling origins. That's Jobs, trying to explain the rise of new technology against a backdrop of a classic cult of personality. That's even Molly's Game, trying to explain gambling being as relevant as ever. And that's Moneyball, trying to explain how the Great Recession wasn't going to change anything. The story ends with Beane failing to achieve his goal of leveling the playing field. Red Sox fans know another big market team used his tactics to succeed, and now everyone uses them, and so small market teams like the A's are right back where they started. Like any attempt to fix the economy so it works for everyone, apparently.
But you needn't worry about politics or economics to enjoy Moneyball. Like all great movies, you've got a great cast, one that continually rewards you. You've got the always-underrated Robin Wright there in another thankless supporting role. You've got Philip Seymour Hoffman in his classic Patch Adams mode, the mainstream naysayer standing in Beane's way as A's manager. You've got Jonah Hill reinventing his career as a dramatic actor, inspiring and encouraging Beane to look beyond the standard. And you've got...Chris Pratt?
In 2011, Pratt was two years into his career-making turn in the sitcom Parks & Recreation, three away from his breakout role in Guardians of the Galaxy. In Moneyball he plays one of three key small-salary players Beane scoops up to replace superstars. I can't be sure that this isn't hindsight speaking, but he easily stands out from the pack, acting-wise, and even in a small role stands out in the film, without hamming it up, as he does in Guardians. (In Parks he was cast in the John Krasinski Office role, and not unsurprisingly both have since taken the classic lovable everyman role to cinematic success.) Anyway, it's clear he stands out, that he's destined for greater things, and so it's a fun way to experience Pratt before he hit big. For all I know, Moneyball played a role in helping him get there.
As a lifelong fan of the A's, I always wanted to see the movie just on that front alone, and I wanted to know whether it acknowledged Beane's legacy with the 2004 Red Sox win in the World Series, and whether or not it referenced the "Greek God of Walks," Kevin Youkilis (items two and three? check and check). (Of course Beane usurper Theo Epstein, who helped engineer Boston's 2004 curse reversal, did it again with the Cubs after the film was released.)
The film puts a hard focus on some things and a soft one on others. It glosses over the ace pitching staff the A's had that season, all of whom were later poached (I've long called the A's the farm system of the rest of the league, which made it funny when Beane laments the same thing in the movie) by other teams. Clearly it has a narrative it wants to tell. I'm not going to quibble over stuff like that. As I said, it's really an excuse to let Pitt be Brad Pitt. I'll take that. Yeah...
the story: Billy Beane starts a revolution in baseball by putting the hard focus on stats.
the review: I was always going to watch Moneyball, but I also put it off for years. The reason for both is the same, and that's Brad Pitt. Pitt's one of the best actors working today, but his best work is retreating into the past, and I always thought Moneyball was the start of that. I mean, what does Moneyball have to say about his talent, his unique charisma? It's a movie about baseball stats!
As it turns out, plenty. It's one of those quintessential Pitt roles. It's a lot like his Jesse James (as in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, one of my all-time favorites). In fact, that's the best reason to watch it. I've got and will go into plenty of others, too, but that's the main reason, and it's the big thrust of the movie itself. It conforms real history into a showcase performance. You can't appreciate the art of filmmaking if you watch a movie like Moneyball and don't understand that. I'm not talking "showcase performance" in that Pitt makes it flashy, but that it's a role that boils down the essence of a Brad Pitt performance and gives it another context. That's a movie star. And maybe that's why Pitt doesn't get a lot of great roles these days, because the focus had shifted far away from movie stars and onto blockbuster franchises (actual and would-be). So far the closest Pitt's come to work like that is the unexpected success of World War Z (which I also got around to watching recently, and enjoyed to a lesser extent).
Billy Beane was the general manager of the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 season the movie covers. The A's were struggling to recover from the loss of three key players from a great 2001 campaign, mostly because of, well, money. In fact, Moneyball is less about baseball than it is about money. It's a Great Recession movie. It's about a small market team struggling to remain competitive against big market teams. The movie uses a graphic that explains the huge disparity between the payroll of the A's and the most successful franchise in MLB history, the New York Yankees. Basically it's about the haves and the have-nots, the 1% and the lower class. (It may be worth remembering that although athletes are paid handsomely today, more in some sports than others, and more with greater visibility, they used to do this as a side hobby back in the day, as in, for no pay. Jim Thorpe got screwed out of Olympic glory because he played baseball for money, but these guys used to struggle on this life. In other words, this isn't to note the irony of people playing baseball complaining about money. Relatively speaking, Moneyball is talking about all the players making minimum wage.)
Moneyball, in effect, is the predecessor of later movies like The Big Short (2015). In that sense it's also relevant to speak of co-writer Aaron Sorkin's involvement. It may not be known as an Aaron Sorkin project, but it's got Sorkin all over it. Above all else, Sorkin is always interested in trying to riddle out why something's happened. That's The West Wing, trying to figure out why politics remained popular despite how divisive they had become and were going to remain long after the TV series ended. That's The Social Network, trying to figure out how Facebook became so big despite its humbling origins. That's Jobs, trying to explain the rise of new technology against a backdrop of a classic cult of personality. That's even Molly's Game, trying to explain gambling being as relevant as ever. And that's Moneyball, trying to explain how the Great Recession wasn't going to change anything. The story ends with Beane failing to achieve his goal of leveling the playing field. Red Sox fans know another big market team used his tactics to succeed, and now everyone uses them, and so small market teams like the A's are right back where they started. Like any attempt to fix the economy so it works for everyone, apparently.
But you needn't worry about politics or economics to enjoy Moneyball. Like all great movies, you've got a great cast, one that continually rewards you. You've got the always-underrated Robin Wright there in another thankless supporting role. You've got Philip Seymour Hoffman in his classic Patch Adams mode, the mainstream naysayer standing in Beane's way as A's manager. You've got Jonah Hill reinventing his career as a dramatic actor, inspiring and encouraging Beane to look beyond the standard. And you've got...Chris Pratt?
In 2011, Pratt was two years into his career-making turn in the sitcom Parks & Recreation, three away from his breakout role in Guardians of the Galaxy. In Moneyball he plays one of three key small-salary players Beane scoops up to replace superstars. I can't be sure that this isn't hindsight speaking, but he easily stands out from the pack, acting-wise, and even in a small role stands out in the film, without hamming it up, as he does in Guardians. (In Parks he was cast in the John Krasinski Office role, and not unsurprisingly both have since taken the classic lovable everyman role to cinematic success.) Anyway, it's clear he stands out, that he's destined for greater things, and so it's a fun way to experience Pratt before he hit big. For all I know, Moneyball played a role in helping him get there.
As a lifelong fan of the A's, I always wanted to see the movie just on that front alone, and I wanted to know whether it acknowledged Beane's legacy with the 2004 Red Sox win in the World Series, and whether or not it referenced the "Greek God of Walks," Kevin Youkilis (items two and three? check and check). (Of course Beane usurper Theo Epstein, who helped engineer Boston's 2004 curse reversal, did it again with the Cubs after the film was released.)
The film puts a hard focus on some things and a soft one on others. It glosses over the ace pitching staff the A's had that season, all of whom were later poached (I've long called the A's the farm system of the rest of the league, which made it funny when Beane laments the same thing in the movie) by other teams. Clearly it has a narrative it wants to tell. I'm not going to quibble over stuff like that. As I said, it's really an excuse to let Pitt be Brad Pitt. I'll take that. Yeah...
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Isle of Dogs (2018)
rating: *****
the story: A corrupt politician creates a conspiracy to exile all dogs, but his adopted son mounts a campaign to rescue them.
what it's all about: The exact parallels aren't there, and they don't need to be, but Isle of Dogs might be the first great cinematic response to Trump, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. Its plot can be seen as a response to Trump's immigration policies. But regardless of all that, it's a great film, the crowning artistic achievement of Wes Anderson's career.
Anderson has made a career of creating quirky movies. He's become increasingly ambitious over the years. 2001's The Royal Tenenbaums was his first widely-acknowledged success, but Anderson took a giant leap forward with his follow-up, 2004's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which can be interpreted as a modern, absurdist's version of Moby-Dick. 2009's Fantastic Mr. Fox, a stylistic herald to Isle of Dogs, saw Anderson begin to break free entirely of conventions, while 2014's The Grand Budapest Hotel saw him emerge on a truly grand scale for the first time.
Isle of Dogs, no matter how you interpret it, even if it's only to be understood as a generic cautionary tale, is a wholly contained accomplishment, a complete vision capable of being enjoyed on multiple levels. The title itself is a nod and a wink; you can love it if all you are is a dog lover. This is an era that relishes simple pleasures, after all. You can relish it for the rich vocal cast, a true embarrassment of riches that continues Grand Budapest Hotel's most simple pleasure, all those small roles filled by well-known actors. You have Bryan Cranston, still justifiably riding the wave of his breakthrough performance in Breaking Bad, in the lead role. You have Edward Norton and Liev Schreiber just below him. You have Bill Murray, you have Jeff Goldblum, you have Scarlett Johansson, you have Bob Balaban, Greta Gerwig, Harvey Keitel. You even have Fisher Stevens! You have Courtney B. Vance as narrator!
You can appreciate it as a boy's quest movie. You can appreciate it as the rare movie omitting subtitles despite heavy usage of Japanese characters speaking Japanese. You can appreciate it for subverting the "white savior" concept, despite criticism that it plays into that concept. Gerwig voices an American schoolgirl who leads a peoples revolution against the corrupt politician, but in the end it isn't her actions that produce the happy ending, but the adopted son's, who is Japanese, and the dogs, all of whom have plenty of reasons not to work together, but do. And that's as much the message of the movie as anything else, that idea of putting aside differences that seems to have been utterly lost today.
The music is intrinsic to all this. Not just the taiko drumming. Another criticism of the movie is that it takes a white man's poor understanding of Japanese culture and assumes it's being accurate. The whole point of omitting subtitles is acknowledging the cultural divides that even the dogs represent, speaking English (dogs don't speak English). It's metaphor, people. There's nothing intrinsically Japanese about this movie, it's a creative choice, in a movie brilliantly bursting with them. Very few directors in history have made as many of them, and as many of them as well, as Wes Anderson has in Isle of Dogs. The constant drum beats, with or without taiko drums, and the anonymous indy-style songs, are incumbent of a talent who has been synthesizing the castoffs of film history for decades, and come up with a masterpiece from them.
I don't know if this is going to remain my favorite movie of 2018, but it's going to be difficult to beat.
the story: A corrupt politician creates a conspiracy to exile all dogs, but his adopted son mounts a campaign to rescue them.
what it's all about: The exact parallels aren't there, and they don't need to be, but Isle of Dogs might be the first great cinematic response to Trump, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum. Its plot can be seen as a response to Trump's immigration policies. But regardless of all that, it's a great film, the crowning artistic achievement of Wes Anderson's career.
Anderson has made a career of creating quirky movies. He's become increasingly ambitious over the years. 2001's The Royal Tenenbaums was his first widely-acknowledged success, but Anderson took a giant leap forward with his follow-up, 2004's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which can be interpreted as a modern, absurdist's version of Moby-Dick. 2009's Fantastic Mr. Fox, a stylistic herald to Isle of Dogs, saw Anderson begin to break free entirely of conventions, while 2014's The Grand Budapest Hotel saw him emerge on a truly grand scale for the first time.
Isle of Dogs, no matter how you interpret it, even if it's only to be understood as a generic cautionary tale, is a wholly contained accomplishment, a complete vision capable of being enjoyed on multiple levels. The title itself is a nod and a wink; you can love it if all you are is a dog lover. This is an era that relishes simple pleasures, after all. You can relish it for the rich vocal cast, a true embarrassment of riches that continues Grand Budapest Hotel's most simple pleasure, all those small roles filled by well-known actors. You have Bryan Cranston, still justifiably riding the wave of his breakthrough performance in Breaking Bad, in the lead role. You have Edward Norton and Liev Schreiber just below him. You have Bill Murray, you have Jeff Goldblum, you have Scarlett Johansson, you have Bob Balaban, Greta Gerwig, Harvey Keitel. You even have Fisher Stevens! You have Courtney B. Vance as narrator!
You can appreciate it as a boy's quest movie. You can appreciate it as the rare movie omitting subtitles despite heavy usage of Japanese characters speaking Japanese. You can appreciate it for subverting the "white savior" concept, despite criticism that it plays into that concept. Gerwig voices an American schoolgirl who leads a peoples revolution against the corrupt politician, but in the end it isn't her actions that produce the happy ending, but the adopted son's, who is Japanese, and the dogs, all of whom have plenty of reasons not to work together, but do. And that's as much the message of the movie as anything else, that idea of putting aside differences that seems to have been utterly lost today.
The music is intrinsic to all this. Not just the taiko drumming. Another criticism of the movie is that it takes a white man's poor understanding of Japanese culture and assumes it's being accurate. The whole point of omitting subtitles is acknowledging the cultural divides that even the dogs represent, speaking English (dogs don't speak English). It's metaphor, people. There's nothing intrinsically Japanese about this movie, it's a creative choice, in a movie brilliantly bursting with them. Very few directors in history have made as many of them, and as many of them as well, as Wes Anderson has in Isle of Dogs. The constant drum beats, with or without taiko drums, and the anonymous indy-style songs, are incumbent of a talent who has been synthesizing the castoffs of film history for decades, and come up with a masterpiece from them.
I don't know if this is going to remain my favorite movie of 2018, but it's going to be difficult to beat.
Citizen Kane (1941)
rating: *****
the story: Family comes into money, boy is sent to grow up rich, spends his life disappointed with the results.
what it's all about: What to say about Citizen Kane that hasn't already been said? If it's not indeed the greatest movie ever made, it's at least the first evidence that film is a medium capable of producing great art. We live in an era, now, that alternately worships popular art and fringe art, and there's very little room to laude anything in-between. Popular art makes all the money at the box office, and fringe art wins all the awards. It's absurd. And then we have Citizen Kane. I think it would be equally doomed today as it was when William Randolph Hearst realized Orson Welles had based a large chunk of it on his life. Hearst effectively blacklisted Welles from Hollywood, as an untethered voice, and declared that art, in Hollywood, came with a price. The studios, then and again now, liked their iron grip, regardless of the results (which is not to say the results must always be construed negatively), and were happy to balk at someone like Welles, who challenged them. In the '60s a whole generation of directors came about to expand the legacy of Citizen Kane, a movement that crested in the '90s, when smaller studios realized they had power, too, in wielding such creative forces, and set about believing they were more important. But in art, it is always the artist, and the artist will always be remembered. You can push an artist to greatness, but as evidenced by The Agony and the Ecstasy, you will find yourself hard-pressed to be remembered positively for it.
Anyway, what about the movie itself? Beyond the visionary techniques? What about the story itself? What does it ultimately say? One of the most overt things about it is that Charles Foster Kane doesn't love others so much as yearns for them to love him. This is one of those things Kane subverts about the tenets of storytelling: he tells more than he shows. He's too busy showing the opulence to bother with rules. He understands that telling is showing, because it reveals the heart of the human experience, since for the subject of his movie, showing was telling, and no one wanted to look. His mother, his father, and the man who would raise Charlie didn't care about the pleasure he took from the mere act of having fun with "Rosebud." His mother is cold and distant when we see her, resigned to the decision she made, and rationalizing it by demonizing the father. She suggests that he's a physical threat to their son, but he's really an emotional one, as far as she's concerned; Charlie's dad hates the idea of his son being sent away. And Charlie himself hates it. But his rebellion is a subtle one, against the system he's meant to embrace. He becomes a newspaper publisher, and he revels in chaos. He would love the modern age.
I am absolutely saying Citizen Kane is more relevant in 2018 than possibly ever before. In the movie, Charlie straddles the 19th and 20th centuries. We forget about the plague of anarchists from that time. We can identify terrorists, and what motivates them, in the 21st, but anarchists? They assassinated a president and an archduke, and they reached the height of their powers in sparking the first world war. We gloss over these things in our rush to condemn a more obvious evil with a more obvious sin, two decades later, and yet the whole point of this movie is to address grievances when they happen, rather than shrink away from them, ignore them, deny them. This is a movie about the lies we tell ourselves, about the truths we refuse to face, and how it poisons everything around us, and yes, that have devastating consequences.
So it is not just powerful filmmaking art, but it is a powerful storytelling statement. And when the sled is finally lost for good, tossed into an inferno, the world loses its chance to understand a man who did everything in his power to gain his revenge, having lost his ability to speak for himself, and farce becomes tragedy. Charlie Kane continually loses himself, and we as voiceless observers alone are capable of redeeming him. In celebrating Citizen Kane, it's important to remember that its message is what's most important about it, and that if we want a better world, we have to know what's wrong, and how to fix it. Many people will tell you what's wrong, and like everyone trying to answer what Charlie's last words were, they're won't understand what they're talking about. Charlie died a monster. But he wasn't, really. He was just another citizen, and that's all he ever wanted to be.
the story: Family comes into money, boy is sent to grow up rich, spends his life disappointed with the results.
what it's all about: What to say about Citizen Kane that hasn't already been said? If it's not indeed the greatest movie ever made, it's at least the first evidence that film is a medium capable of producing great art. We live in an era, now, that alternately worships popular art and fringe art, and there's very little room to laude anything in-between. Popular art makes all the money at the box office, and fringe art wins all the awards. It's absurd. And then we have Citizen Kane. I think it would be equally doomed today as it was when William Randolph Hearst realized Orson Welles had based a large chunk of it on his life. Hearst effectively blacklisted Welles from Hollywood, as an untethered voice, and declared that art, in Hollywood, came with a price. The studios, then and again now, liked their iron grip, regardless of the results (which is not to say the results must always be construed negatively), and were happy to balk at someone like Welles, who challenged them. In the '60s a whole generation of directors came about to expand the legacy of Citizen Kane, a movement that crested in the '90s, when smaller studios realized they had power, too, in wielding such creative forces, and set about believing they were more important. But in art, it is always the artist, and the artist will always be remembered. You can push an artist to greatness, but as evidenced by The Agony and the Ecstasy, you will find yourself hard-pressed to be remembered positively for it.
Anyway, what about the movie itself? Beyond the visionary techniques? What about the story itself? What does it ultimately say? One of the most overt things about it is that Charles Foster Kane doesn't love others so much as yearns for them to love him. This is one of those things Kane subverts about the tenets of storytelling: he tells more than he shows. He's too busy showing the opulence to bother with rules. He understands that telling is showing, because it reveals the heart of the human experience, since for the subject of his movie, showing was telling, and no one wanted to look. His mother, his father, and the man who would raise Charlie didn't care about the pleasure he took from the mere act of having fun with "Rosebud." His mother is cold and distant when we see her, resigned to the decision she made, and rationalizing it by demonizing the father. She suggests that he's a physical threat to their son, but he's really an emotional one, as far as she's concerned; Charlie's dad hates the idea of his son being sent away. And Charlie himself hates it. But his rebellion is a subtle one, against the system he's meant to embrace. He becomes a newspaper publisher, and he revels in chaos. He would love the modern age.
I am absolutely saying Citizen Kane is more relevant in 2018 than possibly ever before. In the movie, Charlie straddles the 19th and 20th centuries. We forget about the plague of anarchists from that time. We can identify terrorists, and what motivates them, in the 21st, but anarchists? They assassinated a president and an archduke, and they reached the height of their powers in sparking the first world war. We gloss over these things in our rush to condemn a more obvious evil with a more obvious sin, two decades later, and yet the whole point of this movie is to address grievances when they happen, rather than shrink away from them, ignore them, deny them. This is a movie about the lies we tell ourselves, about the truths we refuse to face, and how it poisons everything around us, and yes, that have devastating consequences.
So it is not just powerful filmmaking art, but it is a powerful storytelling statement. And when the sled is finally lost for good, tossed into an inferno, the world loses its chance to understand a man who did everything in his power to gain his revenge, having lost his ability to speak for himself, and farce becomes tragedy. Charlie Kane continually loses himself, and we as voiceless observers alone are capable of redeeming him. In celebrating Citizen Kane, it's important to remember that its message is what's most important about it, and that if we want a better world, we have to know what's wrong, and how to fix it. Many people will tell you what's wrong, and like everyone trying to answer what Charlie's last words were, they're won't understand what they're talking about. Charlie died a monster. But he wasn't, really. He was just another citizen, and that's all he ever wanted to be.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Fantastic Four (2005)/Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
rating (combined): ****
the story: Reed Richards leads a scientific mission that inadvertently gives his team superpowers; the Silver Surfer arrives on Earth as a herald of the apocalypse.
review: In hindsight the Fantastic Four duology featuring Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic), Jessica Alba (Invisible Woman), Chris Evans (Human Torch), Michael Chiklis (Thing), and Julian McMahon (Dr. Doom) is one of the most tightly-conceived superhero movie experiences yet filmed.
In the wake of the X-Men (energized comic book fans) and Spider-Man (energized mass audiences), the Fantastic Four always had a tough few acts to follow. Where the X-Men became known for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, Sam Raimi only ever had to contend with one hero. History has shown that if you try to focus on a number of superheroes in one movie, you really need to earn it. And Fantastic Four (2005) introduced, well, four of them, and they all compete for attention. You can kind of tell in the sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) how there was the perception that Chris Evans' Human Torch dominated the first one too much, or that maybe Michael Chiklis's Thing was too depressing. One consistent element was the relationship between Mr. Fantastic and Invisible Woman. They go from catching back up romantically in the first one to spending virtually the entire second one trying to get married. There's no loss of focus there. It's the most direct a second superhero movie has ever come to being a true sequel since Superman II played out the threat of General Zod and company introduced in the first one.
I can only guess the number of reasons why these movies have always been perceived as familiars. Aside from Thing, it's also depressing to think that the nominal lead, Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic), is basically the Absent-Minded Professor. The Robin Williams version of that character has virtually the same arc as Reed across his two movies in Flubber (1997). Unlike Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker (Spider-Man), Ioan Gruffudd never gets to look cool, partly because, again, Evans spends all his time in the first one making Johnny Storm (Human Torch) look as cool as possible. And Johnny is also just as clearly always a supporting role, made all the more clear in the second one, even though technically he has the most redemptive arc and gets the save the day.
I also get the sense that superhero movies viewers will never be able to admit how uncomfortable they are watching women be superheroes. Jennifer Garner, by all rights, should have become iconic after Daredevil (2003), but her solo follow-up Elektra (2005) was the flop that doomed both the character and the franchise. Halle Berry's Catwoman (2004) was a flop, too, and she was consistently deemed a weak link in her role as Storm in the X-Men movies. And despite there being ten years worth of Avengers movies now, there has still not been a single solo Black Widow movie. Yet there are plenty of high profile action movies led by women, including the Hunger Games series and Wonder Woman (2017).
So the fact that Jessica Alba has a prominent role in both movies as Susan Storm (Invisible Woman), to my mind, is no coincidence. You might try to argue that it's the nature of how she's used in the movies, but I don't buy it.
It might not help that along with Chiklis (The Commish, The Shield) and McMahon (Charmed, Nip/Tuck), Alba was previously best known in a TV show (Dark Angel), so it gives the movies a smaller feel than the superhero movies before and after it, by and large populated by known movie stars. The only one among them truly hamstrung in performance for this is McMahon, who never really earns the menace needed to sell the Doom the mere human Victor Von Doom becomes. I don't usually like manipulating voices; giving him an entirely new one might have done the trick. Laurence Fishburne is fantastic (heh) voicing the Silver Surfer in the second one.
Speaking of Rise, a lot of fan complaints for this one stem from the fact that we never actually get to see Galactus. For those who don't know, Galactus in the comics is a gigantic humanoid in purple armor. I don't know how that works in a movie. Rise instead depicts him as a menacing cloud. If anything is wrong with the concept it's that the movie dedicates all its foreshadowing of his threat to the random journeys of the Surfer around the globe. There's very little effort made to sell Armageddon. You can see, throughout both films, that the budget was mostly reserved for selling how cool the team's superpowers are, and certainly in contrast to later Avengers movies that's going to look disappointing, but the team's powers are cool, especially Human Torch and Invisible Woman's. Thing stands out so much, it's really a wonder that so little effort has ever been made to give him solo stories, in the comics. If there were solo movies for these guys, he'd be a natural lead, right along with his frenemy Johnny Storm.
Even if Doom can be disappointing, he makes for an effective, well-explained enemy, which is something a lot of superhero movies struggle to find. That's another reason these movies look better in retrospect. They have a lot going on, but they never bog down in following the journeys of each member of this strange family. They have much better defined arcs than the generalized family shenanigans of the Pixar Four, the Incredibles. And they're always going to have much more storytelling potential. There was a reboot in 2015, equally underappreciated. Tim Story directed both of these, and he's made a career directing duologies. Just, never again, superhero movies. That seems a shame.
the story: Reed Richards leads a scientific mission that inadvertently gives his team superpowers; the Silver Surfer arrives on Earth as a herald of the apocalypse.
review: In hindsight the Fantastic Four duology featuring Ioan Gruffudd (Mr. Fantastic), Jessica Alba (Invisible Woman), Chris Evans (Human Torch), Michael Chiklis (Thing), and Julian McMahon (Dr. Doom) is one of the most tightly-conceived superhero movie experiences yet filmed.
In the wake of the X-Men (energized comic book fans) and Spider-Man (energized mass audiences), the Fantastic Four always had a tough few acts to follow. Where the X-Men became known for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, Sam Raimi only ever had to contend with one hero. History has shown that if you try to focus on a number of superheroes in one movie, you really need to earn it. And Fantastic Four (2005) introduced, well, four of them, and they all compete for attention. You can kind of tell in the sequel, Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) how there was the perception that Chris Evans' Human Torch dominated the first one too much, or that maybe Michael Chiklis's Thing was too depressing. One consistent element was the relationship between Mr. Fantastic and Invisible Woman. They go from catching back up romantically in the first one to spending virtually the entire second one trying to get married. There's no loss of focus there. It's the most direct a second superhero movie has ever come to being a true sequel since Superman II played out the threat of General Zod and company introduced in the first one.
I can only guess the number of reasons why these movies have always been perceived as familiars. Aside from Thing, it's also depressing to think that the nominal lead, Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic), is basically the Absent-Minded Professor. The Robin Williams version of that character has virtually the same arc as Reed across his two movies in Flubber (1997). Unlike Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker (Spider-Man), Ioan Gruffudd never gets to look cool, partly because, again, Evans spends all his time in the first one making Johnny Storm (Human Torch) look as cool as possible. And Johnny is also just as clearly always a supporting role, made all the more clear in the second one, even though technically he has the most redemptive arc and gets the save the day.
I also get the sense that superhero movies viewers will never be able to admit how uncomfortable they are watching women be superheroes. Jennifer Garner, by all rights, should have become iconic after Daredevil (2003), but her solo follow-up Elektra (2005) was the flop that doomed both the character and the franchise. Halle Berry's Catwoman (2004) was a flop, too, and she was consistently deemed a weak link in her role as Storm in the X-Men movies. And despite there being ten years worth of Avengers movies now, there has still not been a single solo Black Widow movie. Yet there are plenty of high profile action movies led by women, including the Hunger Games series and Wonder Woman (2017).
So the fact that Jessica Alba has a prominent role in both movies as Susan Storm (Invisible Woman), to my mind, is no coincidence. You might try to argue that it's the nature of how she's used in the movies, but I don't buy it.
It might not help that along with Chiklis (The Commish, The Shield) and McMahon (Charmed, Nip/Tuck), Alba was previously best known in a TV show (Dark Angel), so it gives the movies a smaller feel than the superhero movies before and after it, by and large populated by known movie stars. The only one among them truly hamstrung in performance for this is McMahon, who never really earns the menace needed to sell the Doom the mere human Victor Von Doom becomes. I don't usually like manipulating voices; giving him an entirely new one might have done the trick. Laurence Fishburne is fantastic (heh) voicing the Silver Surfer in the second one.
Speaking of Rise, a lot of fan complaints for this one stem from the fact that we never actually get to see Galactus. For those who don't know, Galactus in the comics is a gigantic humanoid in purple armor. I don't know how that works in a movie. Rise instead depicts him as a menacing cloud. If anything is wrong with the concept it's that the movie dedicates all its foreshadowing of his threat to the random journeys of the Surfer around the globe. There's very little effort made to sell Armageddon. You can see, throughout both films, that the budget was mostly reserved for selling how cool the team's superpowers are, and certainly in contrast to later Avengers movies that's going to look disappointing, but the team's powers are cool, especially Human Torch and Invisible Woman's. Thing stands out so much, it's really a wonder that so little effort has ever been made to give him solo stories, in the comics. If there were solo movies for these guys, he'd be a natural lead, right along with his frenemy Johnny Storm.
Even if Doom can be disappointing, he makes for an effective, well-explained enemy, which is something a lot of superhero movies struggle to find. That's another reason these movies look better in retrospect. They have a lot going on, but they never bog down in following the journeys of each member of this strange family. They have much better defined arcs than the generalized family shenanigans of the Pixar Four, the Incredibles. And they're always going to have much more storytelling potential. There was a reboot in 2015, equally underappreciated. Tim Story directed both of these, and he's made a career directing duologies. Just, never again, superhero movies. That seems a shame.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
American Made (2017)
rating: ****
the story: Based on a true story, an airline pilot finds himself drafted into the Iran-Contra Affair.
review: Tom Cruise was one of the biggest movie stars of the '80s and '90s. At the turn of the millennium his reputation took a big hit due to his increasingly visible affiliation with the Church of Scientology. Subsequent film projects had to compete with this reputation, and he's never been as popular since. All that being said, his career remains fascinating. He starred in Born on the Fourth of July in 1989, a drama that helped define his career. Suddenly Cruise wasn't just a hotshot playboy but someone who had something to say about the state of the country, even if he was commenting on the war in Vietnam, already fifteen years in the past by then. It wasn't until Lions for Lambs in 2007 where he offered a true follow-up. This was a movie about the increasingly toxic cultural divide that had resulted in part from the Vietnam era.
And then in 2017, he gave us American Made. Unlike his earlier efforts, this one doesn't attempt to lecture about what's right or wrong. The whole point of the movie is that Cruise's character has no idea, and never really cares, about the implications of his actions, which involve the CIA hiring him to take reconnaissance photos in Central America, and then to deliver drugs to revolutionaries in Panama, including future dictator Manuel Noriega, and finally guns to the Contras in Honduras. Director Doug Liman's whole approach to the movie draws on Cruise's charisma and recent reputation as an action star, and turns all that on its head. This is a movie to be enjoyed with irony.
Late in the film Cruise has been arrested and charged for his activities, but the sequence feels more like Jack Reacher, in the second movie Never Go Back, explaining to authorities that he's going to walk away from the situation. For a split second he has to worry about actually facing consequences, going to jail, but then he hears his sentencing as community hours. But he begins worrying about real ramifications, from something worse than a trial, expecting his car to be laced with explosives, after a car his brother-in-law has just gotten in blows up. It's really a movie that understands tone, and its message about what these events really signify doesn't need to be hammered as a result, and that's refreshing in an era where everything is delivered with as much bluntness as possible.
Domhnall Gleeson, appearing in just about everything these days and constantly changing up his persona, is Cruise's CIA handler, depicted much as CIA handlers tend to be (similar to how they're depicted in The Hunting Party, for example), but elevated thanks to Gleeson's uncanny ability to be fascinating in the most mundane ways possible (his scene-chewing snarls in Star Wars films notwithstanding). Jayma Mays plays the prosecutor who thinks she's nailed Cruise; ever since her breakthrough in Red Eye I've been waiting for something worthy to fall in her lap, and this is it. Caleb Landry Jones picks up another scene-stealing supporting role as the ill-fated brother-in-law. For me, it was fun seeing Star Trek: Enterprise standout Connor Trinneer in a small role as a young George W. Bush. His character isn't identified, but Trinneer certainly looks the part, and his scene adds a nice additional irony to the proceedings.
Given his lowered profile, Cruise can no longer count on his projects landing the way they once did. More often than not his interesting work is slipping through the cracks. It'd be a shame if American Made did.
the story: Based on a true story, an airline pilot finds himself drafted into the Iran-Contra Affair.
review: Tom Cruise was one of the biggest movie stars of the '80s and '90s. At the turn of the millennium his reputation took a big hit due to his increasingly visible affiliation with the Church of Scientology. Subsequent film projects had to compete with this reputation, and he's never been as popular since. All that being said, his career remains fascinating. He starred in Born on the Fourth of July in 1989, a drama that helped define his career. Suddenly Cruise wasn't just a hotshot playboy but someone who had something to say about the state of the country, even if he was commenting on the war in Vietnam, already fifteen years in the past by then. It wasn't until Lions for Lambs in 2007 where he offered a true follow-up. This was a movie about the increasingly toxic cultural divide that had resulted in part from the Vietnam era.
And then in 2017, he gave us American Made. Unlike his earlier efforts, this one doesn't attempt to lecture about what's right or wrong. The whole point of the movie is that Cruise's character has no idea, and never really cares, about the implications of his actions, which involve the CIA hiring him to take reconnaissance photos in Central America, and then to deliver drugs to revolutionaries in Panama, including future dictator Manuel Noriega, and finally guns to the Contras in Honduras. Director Doug Liman's whole approach to the movie draws on Cruise's charisma and recent reputation as an action star, and turns all that on its head. This is a movie to be enjoyed with irony.
Late in the film Cruise has been arrested and charged for his activities, but the sequence feels more like Jack Reacher, in the second movie Never Go Back, explaining to authorities that he's going to walk away from the situation. For a split second he has to worry about actually facing consequences, going to jail, but then he hears his sentencing as community hours. But he begins worrying about real ramifications, from something worse than a trial, expecting his car to be laced with explosives, after a car his brother-in-law has just gotten in blows up. It's really a movie that understands tone, and its message about what these events really signify doesn't need to be hammered as a result, and that's refreshing in an era where everything is delivered with as much bluntness as possible.
Domhnall Gleeson, appearing in just about everything these days and constantly changing up his persona, is Cruise's CIA handler, depicted much as CIA handlers tend to be (similar to how they're depicted in The Hunting Party, for example), but elevated thanks to Gleeson's uncanny ability to be fascinating in the most mundane ways possible (his scene-chewing snarls in Star Wars films notwithstanding). Jayma Mays plays the prosecutor who thinks she's nailed Cruise; ever since her breakthrough in Red Eye I've been waiting for something worthy to fall in her lap, and this is it. Caleb Landry Jones picks up another scene-stealing supporting role as the ill-fated brother-in-law. For me, it was fun seeing Star Trek: Enterprise standout Connor Trinneer in a small role as a young George W. Bush. His character isn't identified, but Trinneer certainly looks the part, and his scene adds a nice additional irony to the proceedings.
Given his lowered profile, Cruise can no longer count on his projects landing the way they once did. More often than not his interesting work is slipping through the cracks. It'd be a shame if American Made did.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
rating: ****
the story: Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man.
review: This is the fourth Spider-Man movie, first not directed by Sam Raimi or starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. In other words, it's the first of two directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. I much, much prefer these movies. I get the goofy appeal of the Raimi films (the first two of which are greatly admired by the public at large, the third not as much). Ever since Adam West first dressed up as Batman, or even George Reeves as Superman, audiences kind of expect a little smirk in their superhero. The Avengers movies certainly benefit from that perception. I don't think it's necessary. I think you can take superheroes seriously. And I think along with Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder, no one's done it better than Marc Webb.
The only thing I don't like about Amazing Spider-Man is the giant mutant lizard Rhys Ifans becomes. I think giant mutant villains of any kind is exactly what's wrong with a lot of superhero movies. I like the villains to be identifiable, not cartoons. The superheroes themselves are enough of a stretch in storytelling logic. To make any sense they need to inhabit the real world, as close to the real world as possible. That can't happen with giant mutant villains.
Other than the giant mutant lizard Rhys Ifans becomes, this is as intimate and realistic a superhero movie as you're ever likely to find. The classic template of the origin story is there, a lot like you saw it in Raimi's first movie, but it feels more authentic in Webb's telling. Webb's best film is (500) Days of Summer, a heartbreaking romance where the breakup is fore-ordained and never undone, and the whole point is trying to make peace with it, and why it happened in the first place. So why does Peter Parker become Spider-Man? Well, in this version it has a lot to do with his parents.
Yeah! In most Spider-Man stories, Peter's parents are dead and forgotten, right from the start. Their absence is taken for granted. We see him raised by his aunt and uncle, the one who also has to die in order for Spider-Man to be born. But in this version, even in their absence Peter's parents means a great deal. We see that they were involved in the science that eventually results in Spider-Man, and the giant mutant lizard played by Rhys Ifans. And it's Peter chasing after his absent parents that drives the story. That's full storytelling. Never let an absence become an absence.
I'm not faulting Ifans for the failure of the giant mutant lizard. Ifans is awesome! He's never gotten enough credit, or enough work, for the level of integrity he brings to the table. He's a perfect match for Garfield, and for Stone, who are both credible high school students (I can't say the same for the guy who inherited Garfield's mask). The whole idea of Peter Parker feels real in this incarnation. Uncle Ben is played by Martin Sheen, who like Ifans has never quite gotten the credit he deserves, despite at least two exceptional spotlights (Apocalypse Now, The West Wing, plus a supporting role in The Departed). Sheen feels real, too, and his death is a real tragedy. Field is Aunt May, and once Sheen is out of the picture, she fills in his void. This is a movie about voids being filled. That's what Spider-Man is all about, and that's what his movies ought to be about, and what the characters in them ought to represent. And Denis Leary plays Stone's dad, the police captain who fills the void the absence of J. Jonah Jameson creates, the cynic who rejects the idea of Spider-Man. Until he has a change of heart, when he no longer has a choice. At which point he has Peter make an impossible promise. But the last line of the movie is what ties it all together. Peter admits that promises you can't keep are the best kind.
The traditional logic of Spider-Man is that like all superheroes he eventually makes a vow to do what's right ("with great power comes great responsibility"), but Spider-Man is an act of defiance against all logic, not in a destructive way, but a redemptive one. That's what his origin is meant to convey. For the first and perhaps only time, a movie reflects that. It's worth celebrating.
the story: Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man.
review: This is the fourth Spider-Man movie, first not directed by Sam Raimi or starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. In other words, it's the first of two directed by Marc Webb and starring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. I much, much prefer these movies. I get the goofy appeal of the Raimi films (the first two of which are greatly admired by the public at large, the third not as much). Ever since Adam West first dressed up as Batman, or even George Reeves as Superman, audiences kind of expect a little smirk in their superhero. The Avengers movies certainly benefit from that perception. I don't think it's necessary. I think you can take superheroes seriously. And I think along with Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder, no one's done it better than Marc Webb.
The only thing I don't like about Amazing Spider-Man is the giant mutant lizard Rhys Ifans becomes. I think giant mutant villains of any kind is exactly what's wrong with a lot of superhero movies. I like the villains to be identifiable, not cartoons. The superheroes themselves are enough of a stretch in storytelling logic. To make any sense they need to inhabit the real world, as close to the real world as possible. That can't happen with giant mutant villains.
Other than the giant mutant lizard Rhys Ifans becomes, this is as intimate and realistic a superhero movie as you're ever likely to find. The classic template of the origin story is there, a lot like you saw it in Raimi's first movie, but it feels more authentic in Webb's telling. Webb's best film is (500) Days of Summer, a heartbreaking romance where the breakup is fore-ordained and never undone, and the whole point is trying to make peace with it, and why it happened in the first place. So why does Peter Parker become Spider-Man? Well, in this version it has a lot to do with his parents.
Yeah! In most Spider-Man stories, Peter's parents are dead and forgotten, right from the start. Their absence is taken for granted. We see him raised by his aunt and uncle, the one who also has to die in order for Spider-Man to be born. But in this version, even in their absence Peter's parents means a great deal. We see that they were involved in the science that eventually results in Spider-Man, and the giant mutant lizard played by Rhys Ifans. And it's Peter chasing after his absent parents that drives the story. That's full storytelling. Never let an absence become an absence.
I'm not faulting Ifans for the failure of the giant mutant lizard. Ifans is awesome! He's never gotten enough credit, or enough work, for the level of integrity he brings to the table. He's a perfect match for Garfield, and for Stone, who are both credible high school students (I can't say the same for the guy who inherited Garfield's mask). The whole idea of Peter Parker feels real in this incarnation. Uncle Ben is played by Martin Sheen, who like Ifans has never quite gotten the credit he deserves, despite at least two exceptional spotlights (Apocalypse Now, The West Wing, plus a supporting role in The Departed). Sheen feels real, too, and his death is a real tragedy. Field is Aunt May, and once Sheen is out of the picture, she fills in his void. This is a movie about voids being filled. That's what Spider-Man is all about, and that's what his movies ought to be about, and what the characters in them ought to represent. And Denis Leary plays Stone's dad, the police captain who fills the void the absence of J. Jonah Jameson creates, the cynic who rejects the idea of Spider-Man. Until he has a change of heart, when he no longer has a choice. At which point he has Peter make an impossible promise. But the last line of the movie is what ties it all together. Peter admits that promises you can't keep are the best kind.
The traditional logic of Spider-Man is that like all superheroes he eventually makes a vow to do what's right ("with great power comes great responsibility"), but Spider-Man is an act of defiance against all logic, not in a destructive way, but a redemptive one. That's what his origin is meant to convey. For the first and perhaps only time, a movie reflects that. It's worth celebrating.
Lions for Lambs (2007)
rating: ****
the story: Two conversations tackle the state of America in 2007.
review: From the vantage point of 2018, the conversation in America sucks. Lions for Lambs captures perhaps the last real opportunity the nation had to correct this before it became impossible for differences to be set aside and people to be civil about their political differences. At the time of its original release, it was dismissed as talky, academic. I always found the results, all the same, to be fascinating. Today they're downright essential.
A political science professor played by director Robert Redford and a brilliant but disenchanted student played by Andrew Garfield form one of the conversations. A hotshot Republican played by Tom Cruise and a liberal reporter played by Meryl Streep form the other conversation. Soldiers played by Michael Pena, Derek Luke, and Peter Berg participate in military maneuvers, illustrating the realities of what their talking about. I love the idea of Redford, Cruise, and Streep converging on something. I love Garfield already submerging himself in vital material. I think few actors today have chosen as interesting material, as consistently, as Andrew Garfield.
Cruise was still working at winning back his credibility after his affiliation with the Church of Scientology had become toxic. Today he subsists mostly on Mission: Impossible movies. The opportunity has definitively, it seems, been lost. Back in 2007, though, Lions for Lambs is a kind of latter-day answer to Born on the Fourth of July, the Oliver Stone movie where Cruise plays a real-life veteran who after having become paralyzed in Vietnam becomes disenchanted and begins protesting the war. Garfield's role is the complete opposite of that role; he never even signs up. That's exactly the legacy of the Vietnam era right there. I saw it myself on campus in the early part of the century. Garfield doesn't believe he can affect change, despite his passionate, well-considered opinions. Today we see students protesting...everything. But we don't see them inserting themselves into the process. We've collectively decided the process is broken, just as Garfield's character does. But Redford challenges Garfield to choose a different path. He admits he was a Vietnam protester, too. But to motivate Garfield, he tells him about two other students he had, Luke and Pena, who chose very different paths, enlisting in the army. They give a brilliant presentation in his class explaining exactly why.
It's the juxtaposition of their thought process, Garfield's, and the fact that Redford is willing to support all three of them despite having other ideas. He sees it as essential that participation, not protest, is chosen as a reaction. When Obama was first elected, he was called a symbol of hope, that the system could still work. After the Bush presidency, voters wanted to believe in positive change. Yet Obama ended up presiding over a further polarized culture, not because he was black but because protest became a permanent way of life, disengagement, cynicism.
And that's what Cruise and Streep's conversation reflects. Meryl Streep's career fascinates me. At this point she hadn't yet chosen to represent the protests of Hollywood. That was still reserved for documentary filmmakers. She was only a few years removed from portraying a pastiche of Hillary Clinton in The Manchurian Candidate. Later, she'd rocket to new levels of acclaim playing all sorts of morally superior figures, and be rewarded with a staggering array of Oscar nominations. She'd become a figure out outrage. Her character in Lions for Lambs ultimately decides on that path. She opts to give up the idea of dialogue with the other side, after sitting through the conversation with Cruise. Her producer begs her to keep trying. She decides it isn't worth it anymore.
It's the kind of conclusion you can either agree with or find unsettling. I find it the latter, and I see that as exactly what happened, over the past decade, and I think that was a massive mistake. This is a movie that reflects what could've been. And now it stands as a testament to what didn't happen, and why.
Maybe it's a little hard to watch, because it is talky, but sometimes that's exactly what's necessary. Arguably, more than necessary. And now it serves as testament to what should have happened, and why. The sad part is, we know it was rejected at the time, as well as the idea it represented.
the story: Two conversations tackle the state of America in 2007.
review: From the vantage point of 2018, the conversation in America sucks. Lions for Lambs captures perhaps the last real opportunity the nation had to correct this before it became impossible for differences to be set aside and people to be civil about their political differences. At the time of its original release, it was dismissed as talky, academic. I always found the results, all the same, to be fascinating. Today they're downright essential.
A political science professor played by director Robert Redford and a brilliant but disenchanted student played by Andrew Garfield form one of the conversations. A hotshot Republican played by Tom Cruise and a liberal reporter played by Meryl Streep form the other conversation. Soldiers played by Michael Pena, Derek Luke, and Peter Berg participate in military maneuvers, illustrating the realities of what their talking about. I love the idea of Redford, Cruise, and Streep converging on something. I love Garfield already submerging himself in vital material. I think few actors today have chosen as interesting material, as consistently, as Andrew Garfield.
Cruise was still working at winning back his credibility after his affiliation with the Church of Scientology had become toxic. Today he subsists mostly on Mission: Impossible movies. The opportunity has definitively, it seems, been lost. Back in 2007, though, Lions for Lambs is a kind of latter-day answer to Born on the Fourth of July, the Oliver Stone movie where Cruise plays a real-life veteran who after having become paralyzed in Vietnam becomes disenchanted and begins protesting the war. Garfield's role is the complete opposite of that role; he never even signs up. That's exactly the legacy of the Vietnam era right there. I saw it myself on campus in the early part of the century. Garfield doesn't believe he can affect change, despite his passionate, well-considered opinions. Today we see students protesting...everything. But we don't see them inserting themselves into the process. We've collectively decided the process is broken, just as Garfield's character does. But Redford challenges Garfield to choose a different path. He admits he was a Vietnam protester, too. But to motivate Garfield, he tells him about two other students he had, Luke and Pena, who chose very different paths, enlisting in the army. They give a brilliant presentation in his class explaining exactly why.
It's the juxtaposition of their thought process, Garfield's, and the fact that Redford is willing to support all three of them despite having other ideas. He sees it as essential that participation, not protest, is chosen as a reaction. When Obama was first elected, he was called a symbol of hope, that the system could still work. After the Bush presidency, voters wanted to believe in positive change. Yet Obama ended up presiding over a further polarized culture, not because he was black but because protest became a permanent way of life, disengagement, cynicism.
And that's what Cruise and Streep's conversation reflects. Meryl Streep's career fascinates me. At this point she hadn't yet chosen to represent the protests of Hollywood. That was still reserved for documentary filmmakers. She was only a few years removed from portraying a pastiche of Hillary Clinton in The Manchurian Candidate. Later, she'd rocket to new levels of acclaim playing all sorts of morally superior figures, and be rewarded with a staggering array of Oscar nominations. She'd become a figure out outrage. Her character in Lions for Lambs ultimately decides on that path. She opts to give up the idea of dialogue with the other side, after sitting through the conversation with Cruise. Her producer begs her to keep trying. She decides it isn't worth it anymore.
It's the kind of conclusion you can either agree with or find unsettling. I find it the latter, and I see that as exactly what happened, over the past decade, and I think that was a massive mistake. This is a movie that reflects what could've been. And now it stands as a testament to what didn't happen, and why.
Maybe it's a little hard to watch, because it is talky, but sometimes that's exactly what's necessary. Arguably, more than necessary. And now it serves as testament to what should have happened, and why. The sad part is, we know it was rejected at the time, as well as the idea it represented.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
2009 Capsule Reviews
Inglourious Basterds
rating: *****
review: To my mind, the point where Tarantino stopped screwing around being cool and instead just plunged into making a great movie, built around Christoph Waltz's startling, breakthrough performance.
(500) Days of Summer
rating: *****
review: Rewrote the rules of movie romance, an updated When Harry Met Sally...staring the unique talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. This is what La La Land was chasing almost a decade later.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
rating: *****
review: Heath Ledger's last movie, a role he didn't get to complete, but how Terry Gilliam solved that is just one of the ways this became his best and most breathtaking cinematic achievement.
Star Trek
rating: ****
review: The most complete Star Trek movie experience to that point, possibly even since.
Watchmen
rating: ****
review: Zack Snyder gambled that after Dark Knight audiences were ready for a mature superhero movie. This was his first attempt, and it improves on its famous comic book source material.
The Proposal
rating: ****
review: Sandra Bullock finds her first huge success in years playing totally against type, and letting Ryan Reynolds needle her the entire movie over it.
The Hurt Locker
rating: ****
review: Kathryn Bigelow gambles on Jeremy Renner to sell the first great Iraq War movie, and is hugely rewarded.
Moon
rating: ****
review: Duncan Jones and Sam Rockwell start the ball rolling that would lead to Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, and Arrival.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
rating: ****
review: The sixth Harry Potter movie bets that you're totally invested. Most dramatic moments are Dumbledore risking everything for one of the horcruxes, and then his death at the end of the movie. Really, this is the Dumbledore entry.
The Time Traveler's Wife
rating: ****
review: Funny enough, Rachel McAdams later makes another time travel movie, About Time. In this one, she romances Eric Bana, who keeps popping up randomly in her life. The book is truly transcendent. The movie is close enough to be well worth savoring, too.
Bronson
rating: ****
review: After years of chasing after a defining role, Tom Hardy finds one, and now he's been chasing its legacy ever since.
Red Cliff
rating: ****
review: John Woo's big Chinese epic.
Funny People
rating: ****
review: My favorite Adam Sandler movie, kind of channels Warren Zevon's death beautifully.
Terminator Salvation
rating: ****
review: This is one of those movies that got overshadowed by production matters, that incident where Christian Bale loses his kit. The movie itself is a totally fresh look at the franchise, with Sam Worthington turning in his first notable performance as a kind of prototype Terminator. The result is the Blade Runner of Terminator movies.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
rating: ****
review: Surprisingly entertaining thanks to Channing Tatum and Sienna Miller anchoring the more cartoonish elements around them. Joseph Gordon-Levitt whiffs as Cobra Commander.
Crazy Heart
rating: ****
review: Jeff Bridges settles into the grizzled version of his social deviant archetype.
State of Play
rating: ****
review: Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck in a rousing political thriller.
The Pink Panther 2
rating: ****
review: Not as surprising as its predecessor, but as a fan of the series I still wildly appreciate Steve Martin's contributions.
The Hangover
rating: ****
review: One of the iconic comedies of the modern era.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
rating: ****
review: It's been typical to say Hugh Jackman struggled to find a worthy Wolverine solo vehicle, but this first attempt is already up to the task, recruiting the always-charismatic Liev Schreiber to play opposite him. Really hard to not appreciate that. Forget about Ryan Reynolds' first Deadpool. That's just an excuse everyone likes to use.
Angels & Demons
rating: ****
review: The second Hanks/Howard Robert Langdon movie is not the revelation the first one was, but recruiting Ewan McGregor was smart, and the movie later helped inspire the inspired ending of The Dark Knight Rises.
Killshot
rating: ****
review: Great ensemble, underrated entry in the Mickey Rourke comeback tour.
Two Lovers
rating: ****
review: Devastating romance between Joaquin Phoenix and Gwyneth Paltrow.
A Perfect Getaway
rating: ****
review: Breezy ensemble thriller with a great cast.
Avatar
rating: ****
review: Immersive new vision of a blockbuster epic.
Fast and Furious
rating: ****
review: The unlikely fourth in the series, and the first in a hugely successful revival that eventually weaves the first three into a working tapestry unrivaled in cinematic history.
The Soloist
rating: ****
review: Moving social drama featuring Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
rating: ****
review: Wes Anderson at his most fun.
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
rating: ***
review: Serviceable look back at this franchise's origins, a tad overestimating how epic it seemed.
The Slammin' Salmon
rating: ***
review: A scaled back comedy from Broken Lizard.
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
rating: ***
review: Nicolas Cage in a kind of remake that allows him to do his world-weary version of Nicolas Cage.
Land of the Lost
rating: ***
review: Will Ferrell gets to have a lot of fun in this remake. Kind of the template for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, minus the strong supporting cast.
Zombieland
rating: ***
review: Cult style zombie comedy. Best part is the hilarious Bill Murray cameo.
Up in the Air
rating: ***
review: George Clooney in his groove, waiting for a movie to find itself around him.
Where the Wild Things Are
rating: ***
review: Really, really should've been transcendent. Instead it's just ambitious.
Taken
rating: ***
review: I don't know if the other two movies in the series have a story that's truly worthy of the instantly iconic Liam Neeson performance. Maybe someday I'll find out.
Invictus
rating: ***
review: Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. I think it's kind of a waste to pin the first big Mandela movie on a rugby story.
Pirate Radio
rating: ***
review: Good screwball material, excellent cast.
Everybody's Fine
rating: ***
review: Robert De Niro as a dad who disappointed his kids, and trying to make right with them. Worthwhile material.
The Men Who Stare at Goats
rating: ***
review: I'm not sure the movie totally nails that its insane events are based on a true story. So instead have fun with that great cast!
Race to Witch Mountain
rating: ***
review: Dwayne Johnson beginning to figure out that if he's a tough guy in the movie, the movie around him has to make that idea rewarding.
He's Just Not That Into You
rating: ***
review: Great cast!
District 9
rating: ***
review: Great story. Nothing in it is as fantastic as Sharlto Copley.
The Princess and the Frog
rating: ***
review: Vaguely racist but classic Disney princess flick.
Surrogates
rating: ***
review: Bruce Willis is ultimately too grim to sell this as a sci-fi adventure.
The Blind Side
rating: ***
review: Nothing in this is as great as Sandra Bullock is in it.
Me and Orson Welles
rating: ***
review: Orson Welles ought to always pop. Otherwise, what's the point of having Orson Welles?
Carriers
rating: ***
review: Chris Pine in a dramatic version of Zombieland.
Ninja Assassin
rating: ***
review: Fun to watch.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
rating: ***
review: Totally zany animated flick.
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
rating: ***
review: The best thing about this is also the most curious thing about it, that it's sold entirely on how pathetic Kevin James is. Someone assumed his Hitch appearance was his movie template.
The Ugly Truth
rating: ***
review: This is the Gerard Butler movie where he's a male chauvinist. Basically Gerard Butler is completely responsible for the state of male-female relations.
I Love You, Man
rating: ***
review: Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are best friends. Kind of! I wonder if this wouldn't have been better with Will Ferrell in Segel's role. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg!
Coraline
rating: ***
review: Creepy Neil Gaiman story. Probably would've been better live action.
Couples Retreat
rating: ***
review: Seems like this ensemble comedy would've worked better with more focus.
2012
rating: **
review: Pretty standard, generic catastrophe flick.
Sherlock Holmes
rating: **
review: I think it was a huge mistake to cast Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson. Should've been flip-flopped.
The Fourth Kind
rating: **
review: Would've been creepier if the suspension of disbelief weren't intrinsic to its appeal.
Duplicity
rating: **
review: Julia Roberts and Clive Owen maybe aren't the right actors for this sort of thing.
Law Abiding Citizen
rating: **
review: Gerard Butler totally overpowers this one. Hilarious, given he's just gotten himself in a spot where people are noticing him at all.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
rating: **
review: Huge boost with Jacob, but this is an anemic saga.
Planet 51
rating: **
review: Home nails the alien animated flick six years later.
Push
rating: **
review: Chris Evans still hasn't quite found his big superhero role. But it's coming!
rating: *****
review: To my mind, the point where Tarantino stopped screwing around being cool and instead just plunged into making a great movie, built around Christoph Waltz's startling, breakthrough performance.
(500) Days of Summer
rating: *****
review: Rewrote the rules of movie romance, an updated When Harry Met Sally...staring the unique talents of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. This is what La La Land was chasing almost a decade later.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
rating: *****
review: Heath Ledger's last movie, a role he didn't get to complete, but how Terry Gilliam solved that is just one of the ways this became his best and most breathtaking cinematic achievement.
Star Trek
rating: ****
review: The most complete Star Trek movie experience to that point, possibly even since.
Watchmen
rating: ****
review: Zack Snyder gambled that after Dark Knight audiences were ready for a mature superhero movie. This was his first attempt, and it improves on its famous comic book source material.
The Proposal
rating: ****
review: Sandra Bullock finds her first huge success in years playing totally against type, and letting Ryan Reynolds needle her the entire movie over it.
The Hurt Locker
rating: ****
review: Kathryn Bigelow gambles on Jeremy Renner to sell the first great Iraq War movie, and is hugely rewarded.
Moon
rating: ****
review: Duncan Jones and Sam Rockwell start the ball rolling that would lead to Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, and Arrival.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
rating: ****
review: The sixth Harry Potter movie bets that you're totally invested. Most dramatic moments are Dumbledore risking everything for one of the horcruxes, and then his death at the end of the movie. Really, this is the Dumbledore entry.
The Time Traveler's Wife
rating: ****
review: Funny enough, Rachel McAdams later makes another time travel movie, About Time. In this one, she romances Eric Bana, who keeps popping up randomly in her life. The book is truly transcendent. The movie is close enough to be well worth savoring, too.
Bronson
rating: ****
review: After years of chasing after a defining role, Tom Hardy finds one, and now he's been chasing its legacy ever since.
Red Cliff
rating: ****
review: John Woo's big Chinese epic.
Funny People
rating: ****
review: My favorite Adam Sandler movie, kind of channels Warren Zevon's death beautifully.
Terminator Salvation
rating: ****
review: This is one of those movies that got overshadowed by production matters, that incident where Christian Bale loses his kit. The movie itself is a totally fresh look at the franchise, with Sam Worthington turning in his first notable performance as a kind of prototype Terminator. The result is the Blade Runner of Terminator movies.
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
rating: ****
review: Surprisingly entertaining thanks to Channing Tatum and Sienna Miller anchoring the more cartoonish elements around them. Joseph Gordon-Levitt whiffs as Cobra Commander.
Crazy Heart
rating: ****
review: Jeff Bridges settles into the grizzled version of his social deviant archetype.
State of Play
rating: ****
review: Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck in a rousing political thriller.
The Pink Panther 2
rating: ****
review: Not as surprising as its predecessor, but as a fan of the series I still wildly appreciate Steve Martin's contributions.
The Hangover
rating: ****
review: One of the iconic comedies of the modern era.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
rating: ****
review: It's been typical to say Hugh Jackman struggled to find a worthy Wolverine solo vehicle, but this first attempt is already up to the task, recruiting the always-charismatic Liev Schreiber to play opposite him. Really hard to not appreciate that. Forget about Ryan Reynolds' first Deadpool. That's just an excuse everyone likes to use.
Angels & Demons
rating: ****
review: The second Hanks/Howard Robert Langdon movie is not the revelation the first one was, but recruiting Ewan McGregor was smart, and the movie later helped inspire the inspired ending of The Dark Knight Rises.
Killshot
rating: ****
review: Great ensemble, underrated entry in the Mickey Rourke comeback tour.
Two Lovers
rating: ****
review: Devastating romance between Joaquin Phoenix and Gwyneth Paltrow.
A Perfect Getaway
rating: ****
review: Breezy ensemble thriller with a great cast.
Avatar
rating: ****
review: Immersive new vision of a blockbuster epic.
Fast and Furious
rating: ****
review: The unlikely fourth in the series, and the first in a hugely successful revival that eventually weaves the first three into a working tapestry unrivaled in cinematic history.
The Soloist
rating: ****
review: Moving social drama featuring Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
rating: ****
review: Wes Anderson at his most fun.
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans
rating: ***
review: Serviceable look back at this franchise's origins, a tad overestimating how epic it seemed.
The Slammin' Salmon
rating: ***
review: A scaled back comedy from Broken Lizard.
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
rating: ***
review: Nicolas Cage in a kind of remake that allows him to do his world-weary version of Nicolas Cage.
Land of the Lost
rating: ***
review: Will Ferrell gets to have a lot of fun in this remake. Kind of the template for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, minus the strong supporting cast.
Zombieland
rating: ***
review: Cult style zombie comedy. Best part is the hilarious Bill Murray cameo.
Up in the Air
rating: ***
review: George Clooney in his groove, waiting for a movie to find itself around him.
Where the Wild Things Are
rating: ***
review: Really, really should've been transcendent. Instead it's just ambitious.
Taken
rating: ***
review: I don't know if the other two movies in the series have a story that's truly worthy of the instantly iconic Liam Neeson performance. Maybe someday I'll find out.
Invictus
rating: ***
review: Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. I think it's kind of a waste to pin the first big Mandela movie on a rugby story.
Pirate Radio
rating: ***
review: Good screwball material, excellent cast.
Everybody's Fine
rating: ***
review: Robert De Niro as a dad who disappointed his kids, and trying to make right with them. Worthwhile material.
The Men Who Stare at Goats
rating: ***
review: I'm not sure the movie totally nails that its insane events are based on a true story. So instead have fun with that great cast!
Race to Witch Mountain
rating: ***
review: Dwayne Johnson beginning to figure out that if he's a tough guy in the movie, the movie around him has to make that idea rewarding.
He's Just Not That Into You
rating: ***
review: Great cast!
District 9
rating: ***
review: Great story. Nothing in it is as fantastic as Sharlto Copley.
The Princess and the Frog
rating: ***
review: Vaguely racist but classic Disney princess flick.
Surrogates
rating: ***
review: Bruce Willis is ultimately too grim to sell this as a sci-fi adventure.
The Blind Side
rating: ***
review: Nothing in this is as great as Sandra Bullock is in it.
Me and Orson Welles
rating: ***
review: Orson Welles ought to always pop. Otherwise, what's the point of having Orson Welles?
Carriers
rating: ***
review: Chris Pine in a dramatic version of Zombieland.
Ninja Assassin
rating: ***
review: Fun to watch.
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
rating: ***
review: Totally zany animated flick.
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
rating: ***
review: The best thing about this is also the most curious thing about it, that it's sold entirely on how pathetic Kevin James is. Someone assumed his Hitch appearance was his movie template.
The Ugly Truth
rating: ***
review: This is the Gerard Butler movie where he's a male chauvinist. Basically Gerard Butler is completely responsible for the state of male-female relations.
I Love You, Man
rating: ***
review: Paul Rudd and Jason Segel are best friends. Kind of! I wonder if this wouldn't have been better with Will Ferrell in Segel's role. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg!
Coraline
rating: ***
review: Creepy Neil Gaiman story. Probably would've been better live action.
Couples Retreat
rating: ***
review: Seems like this ensemble comedy would've worked better with more focus.
2012
rating: **
review: Pretty standard, generic catastrophe flick.
Sherlock Holmes
rating: **
review: I think it was a huge mistake to cast Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson. Should've been flip-flopped.
The Fourth Kind
rating: **
review: Would've been creepier if the suspension of disbelief weren't intrinsic to its appeal.
Duplicity
rating: **
review: Julia Roberts and Clive Owen maybe aren't the right actors for this sort of thing.
Law Abiding Citizen
rating: **
review: Gerard Butler totally overpowers this one. Hilarious, given he's just gotten himself in a spot where people are noticing him at all.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon
rating: **
review: Huge boost with Jacob, but this is an anemic saga.
Planet 51
rating: **
review: Home nails the alien animated flick six years later.
Push
rating: **
review: Chris Evans still hasn't quite found his big superhero role. But it's coming!
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Looper (2012)
rating: ****
the story: A mob hitman in the future is involved in a scheme involving time travel.
what it's all about: This is likely the movie that got Rian Johnson the Star Wars gig, and you can see The Last Jedi in that ending...!
Looper was originally known as the movie where Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the younger Bruce Willis, or Bruce Willis plays the older Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Either way, they play the same character. It's a couple decades in the future. But three decades after that, time travel is now possible. But the only people who use it, because of all the regulations, are the mob. And they use it mainly to dispose of bodies. They have hitmen in the past who kill the victims. "Looper" is the term given to these hitmen because eventually they "close the loop," kill their own future self, sent to the past with final payment. So they live the next thirty years and then get sent back to the past, to be killed by themselves.
Yeah. But being the mob, it's not a good thing if you don't do it. We get a dramatic example of this with Paul Dano. Paul Dano is the kind of actor that if he's going full Paul Dano, it's best in small doses. Most famously, he was the second lead of There Will Be Blood. To my mind, this was the cause of the horrible unbalance in that movie, because there could only be so much Paul Dano. He's got the same kind of part in Cowboys & Aliens, 12 Years a Slave...Really, he can never really do the Paul Dano thing and have a decent-size role.
Anyway, so there's not a lot of Paul Dano in it, and that's just as well. This was supposed to be one of Gordon-Levitt's leading man mainstream establishing roles, but I think the idea of the movie was too complicated. Besides the hitman looping thing, there's also a kid who grows up to be the guy who "closes all the loops," and he's got a wicked case of telekinesis. For some people, more than one gimmick is one gimmick too many. I'd suggest, in a world where time travel is possible, it's likely that the laws of nature have altered enough so that anything's possible. Maybe a cleverer movie would've explained that, maybe even tied in the existence of telekinesis with time travel. Maybe it's not really necessary. Maybe explaining the concept of looping is enough explanation. Audiences hate explanations more than they hate more than one gimmick.
But if you don't have a problem with any of that, the story is pretty simple, and it's about the cycle of violence, and how to end it. That's what Gordon-Levitt's character ultimately has to do. He and his future self, Bruce Willis, are at odds about how to solve the problem of the guy who "closes all the loops." Because in Gordon-Levitt's time, the guy is just a kid, and his mom is Emily Blunt, and Gordon-Levitt kind of becomes...involved in this little family unit. He's lost his objectivity. He probably lost it the minute Bruce Willis showed up, honestly. (It's okay that he struggled with it over Paul Dano.)
Apparently Deadpool 2 has the same sort of dilemma, that paradox of essentially killing Hitler when he was a kid. When you phrase it like that, the audience is always going to side with killing Hitler. But they don't make movies about killing Hitler as a kid. I guess that's why there's stuff like Inglourious Basterds. Gordon-Levitt's solution is to open the loop. He realizes Bruce Willis trying to kill the kid is what created the guy who "closes all the loops." So he shoots himself and Bruce Willis no longer exists, and the kid doesn't become the guy who "closes all the loops." History goes in another direction.
The Last Jedi is all about opting for different results. This angered a lot of Star Wars fans, as they were pretty committed to the idea of Star Wars being recognizable (even while, paradoxically, complaining that these new movies keep revisiting old territory). Saying that there is a different way to solve the galaxy's problems...Well, anyway, that's what Last Jedi is about, and that's the philosophy of Looper. That's Rian Johnson. He also gave us Brick, a different kind of noir mystery, set in high school. Dude loves the unexpected.
Ah, also showing up in the movie are Piper Perabo (small role, mostly nude), Garrett Dillahunt (perennially underappreciated, likely because of his name), and Jeff Daniels, who gets to play the mob boss. He doesn't need to do much mob business, onscreen, to be taken seriously. That dude is seriously underappreciated.
the story: A mob hitman in the future is involved in a scheme involving time travel.
what it's all about: This is likely the movie that got Rian Johnson the Star Wars gig, and you can see The Last Jedi in that ending...!
Looper was originally known as the movie where Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the younger Bruce Willis, or Bruce Willis plays the older Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Either way, they play the same character. It's a couple decades in the future. But three decades after that, time travel is now possible. But the only people who use it, because of all the regulations, are the mob. And they use it mainly to dispose of bodies. They have hitmen in the past who kill the victims. "Looper" is the term given to these hitmen because eventually they "close the loop," kill their own future self, sent to the past with final payment. So they live the next thirty years and then get sent back to the past, to be killed by themselves.
Yeah. But being the mob, it's not a good thing if you don't do it. We get a dramatic example of this with Paul Dano. Paul Dano is the kind of actor that if he's going full Paul Dano, it's best in small doses. Most famously, he was the second lead of There Will Be Blood. To my mind, this was the cause of the horrible unbalance in that movie, because there could only be so much Paul Dano. He's got the same kind of part in Cowboys & Aliens, 12 Years a Slave...Really, he can never really do the Paul Dano thing and have a decent-size role.
Anyway, so there's not a lot of Paul Dano in it, and that's just as well. This was supposed to be one of Gordon-Levitt's leading man mainstream establishing roles, but I think the idea of the movie was too complicated. Besides the hitman looping thing, there's also a kid who grows up to be the guy who "closes all the loops," and he's got a wicked case of telekinesis. For some people, more than one gimmick is one gimmick too many. I'd suggest, in a world where time travel is possible, it's likely that the laws of nature have altered enough so that anything's possible. Maybe a cleverer movie would've explained that, maybe even tied in the existence of telekinesis with time travel. Maybe it's not really necessary. Maybe explaining the concept of looping is enough explanation. Audiences hate explanations more than they hate more than one gimmick.
But if you don't have a problem with any of that, the story is pretty simple, and it's about the cycle of violence, and how to end it. That's what Gordon-Levitt's character ultimately has to do. He and his future self, Bruce Willis, are at odds about how to solve the problem of the guy who "closes all the loops." Because in Gordon-Levitt's time, the guy is just a kid, and his mom is Emily Blunt, and Gordon-Levitt kind of becomes...involved in this little family unit. He's lost his objectivity. He probably lost it the minute Bruce Willis showed up, honestly. (It's okay that he struggled with it over Paul Dano.)
Apparently Deadpool 2 has the same sort of dilemma, that paradox of essentially killing Hitler when he was a kid. When you phrase it like that, the audience is always going to side with killing Hitler. But they don't make movies about killing Hitler as a kid. I guess that's why there's stuff like Inglourious Basterds. Gordon-Levitt's solution is to open the loop. He realizes Bruce Willis trying to kill the kid is what created the guy who "closes all the loops." So he shoots himself and Bruce Willis no longer exists, and the kid doesn't become the guy who "closes all the loops." History goes in another direction.
The Last Jedi is all about opting for different results. This angered a lot of Star Wars fans, as they were pretty committed to the idea of Star Wars being recognizable (even while, paradoxically, complaining that these new movies keep revisiting old territory). Saying that there is a different way to solve the galaxy's problems...Well, anyway, that's what Last Jedi is about, and that's the philosophy of Looper. That's Rian Johnson. He also gave us Brick, a different kind of noir mystery, set in high school. Dude loves the unexpected.
Ah, also showing up in the movie are Piper Perabo (small role, mostly nude), Garrett Dillahunt (perennially underappreciated, likely because of his name), and Jeff Daniels, who gets to play the mob boss. He doesn't need to do much mob business, onscreen, to be taken seriously. That dude is seriously underappreciated.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
rating: ****
the story: Han Solo emerges from the ship-building grind of life on Corellia to become an intergalactic outlaw.
what it's all about: Incredibly, there seems to be a lot of discontent among Star Wars fans for a Han Solo origin movie. It's franchise fatigue. It happens to every franchise. If this is how you feel about Solo, move along. Move along.
In the new era of Star Wars movies, where George Lucas is no longer the guiding hand of the saga and there are movies that don't directly continue the saga...this might just be the first one capable of establishing it own legacy. Maybe not right away. Let pesky fans attempt to spoil it. Give it time. Pesky fans can't spoil the fun forever. This is the second "anthology" movie of the franchise. The first one, Rogue One, I thought was a horrible disaster. Fans didn't. They loved it. I thought it came to all the wrong conclusions about what Star Wars is all about, and was lazy about...everything. If that was what Star Wars was going to be for a new generation, I shuddered for the future. But Solo makes things right.
There's a lot to unpack here.
One of the things Solo does is nudge what's at the heart of Star Wars, whether or not George Lucas envisioned it as a response to Vietnam. That's one of the things Rogue One most misunderstood. It mistakenly correlated opposition to Vietnam with...tacit approval of terrorism in the Middle East. It really did. Solo handles it very differently. At one point Han has actually become a recruit of the Empire, and he finds himself in the latest in a series of campaigns he can't begin to comprehend, and he asks aloud what their objective is. In the post-Vietnam era, that's warfare. After WWII settled the last of the major international conflicts, the Cold War made it impossible for countries of comparable development to even consider engaging in open combat. The threat of nuclear assault made it unthinkable. Europe found itself depleted of real influence, and that left the US, the Soviets/Russia, and whoever wanted to be considered emerging powers, and this was usually determined with the achievement of nuclear weapons or the ambition to attain them. If a country didn't have them? So that's what Vietnam was, what Afghanistan was, what Iraq was. It was different warfare. Incomprehensible, to most perspectives. Han doesn't really say it's unjustifiable. Actually, he ends up with a group of thieves who are doing pretty much the same sort of thing as the Empire, just on a much smaller scale. The Rebellion isn't depicted as terrorists, but as intermediaries interested in stopping the random exploitation of others. I personally interpret that to take at least some of the edge off comparisons between the US and the Empire, whether or not you ever realized they were there. And I see it as a direct response to Rogue One.
Anyway, to return back to purely movie matters, Solo also is heavily engaged in reclaiming, well, Han Solo. Everyone's Han Solo these days. Tony Stark is Han Solo. Peter Quill is Han Solo. James T. Kirk is Han Solo. Even Jack Sparrow is Han Solo. So it only seems fitting that Han Solo gets to be Han Solo again. We last saw him in The Force Awakens, the first of the new sequels, getting killed by his own son. After the events of Return of the Jedi, Han seems to have backslid into the kind of life he had before A New Hope. That, and the whole being-killed-by-his-own-son thing, kind of put a damper on him, and Star Wars in general. Solo kind of explains what happened, how that could've happened, and it once and for explains what makes Han Solo, well, Han Solo, and what separates him from everyone else who wants to be Han Solo.
Han had a girl back home. Han had to leave the girl behind. Han eventually reunites with the girl. Happy ending? The girl doesn't die! But no, that's not how the movie ends. The movie ends with them deciding to go separate ways. Along with everything else that happens to him during the course of Solo, Han seems to decide forming long-term attachments is probably always going to be difficult. Chewie is different. Chewie sticks around, it seems, because they both know if Chewie ever wanted to leave, he can. At one point Han does say goodbye to Chewie in what he seems to think of as a permanent kind of way, but in pretty short order Chewie's back at his side. The movie is really about Han's relationship with a mentor figure who does everything he can to give Han a cynical outlook. By the time we catch up with Han again in A New Hope, that cynical outlook has taken a firm hold of his thought process, but by the end of Solo he doesn't have it yet. Despite everything he experiences he's much closer to being the good guy he ultimately proves to be.
But we're given every indication that refusing to be called a good guy, at the end of Solo, is what leads to that cynical outlook, refusing to accept that he can depend on others. Losing the girl is that first chink. Forget being betrayed by the mentor. That's nothing!
The movie otherwise presents itself as the modern era version of Han Solo. Everyone who's attempted to be Han Solo, that's what this movie consciously evokes. He gets a Guardians of the Galaxy crew around him, including a mouthy CGI guy (voiced by Jon Favreau). Alden Ehrenreich gets to give his own performance. Unlike Rogue One's horribly botched Tarkin, he isn't asked to imitate someone else. Harrison Ford is Harrison Ford. Instead, Ehrenreich feels a lot more like Chris Pine. True, he's not much like Tony Stark or Jack Sparrow, but that's a good thing. Those were much bigger departures from the archetype, took it places Han Solo ultimately never went. They permanently rogues. Han ultimately isn't.
Emilia Clarke gets another shot at striking big in another franchise (she's the face of Game of Thrones; she didn't really replace anyone's idea of Sarah Connor in Terminator Genisys) as Han's girl. Paul Bettany is her boss, Woody Harrelson is Han's mentor. Thandie Newton shows up, but it's hard to recognize her. Donald Glover plays Lando Calrissian. I love Glover, but he seems to have chosen to underplay the part. Lando's droid plays up that unspoken aspect of Star Wars lore, the subservient nature of droids. Ironically or not it gets plugged into the Millennium Falcon and pretty much forgotten. Lando and Han's scenes seem inspired by Maverick.
I'll always be a Star Wars fan. I love the original trilogy. I love the prequels. I love what the sequels have done so far. I hated Rogue One. I think Solo sums up, with one movie, what Star Wars is all about (minus the Force). I love how it explains the famous Kessel Run. Genius. That alone makes the whole experience worth it.
the story: Han Solo emerges from the ship-building grind of life on Corellia to become an intergalactic outlaw.
what it's all about: Incredibly, there seems to be a lot of discontent among Star Wars fans for a Han Solo origin movie. It's franchise fatigue. It happens to every franchise. If this is how you feel about Solo, move along. Move along.
In the new era of Star Wars movies, where George Lucas is no longer the guiding hand of the saga and there are movies that don't directly continue the saga...this might just be the first one capable of establishing it own legacy. Maybe not right away. Let pesky fans attempt to spoil it. Give it time. Pesky fans can't spoil the fun forever. This is the second "anthology" movie of the franchise. The first one, Rogue One, I thought was a horrible disaster. Fans didn't. They loved it. I thought it came to all the wrong conclusions about what Star Wars is all about, and was lazy about...everything. If that was what Star Wars was going to be for a new generation, I shuddered for the future. But Solo makes things right.
There's a lot to unpack here.
One of the things Solo does is nudge what's at the heart of Star Wars, whether or not George Lucas envisioned it as a response to Vietnam. That's one of the things Rogue One most misunderstood. It mistakenly correlated opposition to Vietnam with...tacit approval of terrorism in the Middle East. It really did. Solo handles it very differently. At one point Han has actually become a recruit of the Empire, and he finds himself in the latest in a series of campaigns he can't begin to comprehend, and he asks aloud what their objective is. In the post-Vietnam era, that's warfare. After WWII settled the last of the major international conflicts, the Cold War made it impossible for countries of comparable development to even consider engaging in open combat. The threat of nuclear assault made it unthinkable. Europe found itself depleted of real influence, and that left the US, the Soviets/Russia, and whoever wanted to be considered emerging powers, and this was usually determined with the achievement of nuclear weapons or the ambition to attain them. If a country didn't have them? So that's what Vietnam was, what Afghanistan was, what Iraq was. It was different warfare. Incomprehensible, to most perspectives. Han doesn't really say it's unjustifiable. Actually, he ends up with a group of thieves who are doing pretty much the same sort of thing as the Empire, just on a much smaller scale. The Rebellion isn't depicted as terrorists, but as intermediaries interested in stopping the random exploitation of others. I personally interpret that to take at least some of the edge off comparisons between the US and the Empire, whether or not you ever realized they were there. And I see it as a direct response to Rogue One.
Anyway, to return back to purely movie matters, Solo also is heavily engaged in reclaiming, well, Han Solo. Everyone's Han Solo these days. Tony Stark is Han Solo. Peter Quill is Han Solo. James T. Kirk is Han Solo. Even Jack Sparrow is Han Solo. So it only seems fitting that Han Solo gets to be Han Solo again. We last saw him in The Force Awakens, the first of the new sequels, getting killed by his own son. After the events of Return of the Jedi, Han seems to have backslid into the kind of life he had before A New Hope. That, and the whole being-killed-by-his-own-son thing, kind of put a damper on him, and Star Wars in general. Solo kind of explains what happened, how that could've happened, and it once and for explains what makes Han Solo, well, Han Solo, and what separates him from everyone else who wants to be Han Solo.
Han had a girl back home. Han had to leave the girl behind. Han eventually reunites with the girl. Happy ending? The girl doesn't die! But no, that's not how the movie ends. The movie ends with them deciding to go separate ways. Along with everything else that happens to him during the course of Solo, Han seems to decide forming long-term attachments is probably always going to be difficult. Chewie is different. Chewie sticks around, it seems, because they both know if Chewie ever wanted to leave, he can. At one point Han does say goodbye to Chewie in what he seems to think of as a permanent kind of way, but in pretty short order Chewie's back at his side. The movie is really about Han's relationship with a mentor figure who does everything he can to give Han a cynical outlook. By the time we catch up with Han again in A New Hope, that cynical outlook has taken a firm hold of his thought process, but by the end of Solo he doesn't have it yet. Despite everything he experiences he's much closer to being the good guy he ultimately proves to be.
But we're given every indication that refusing to be called a good guy, at the end of Solo, is what leads to that cynical outlook, refusing to accept that he can depend on others. Losing the girl is that first chink. Forget being betrayed by the mentor. That's nothing!
The movie otherwise presents itself as the modern era version of Han Solo. Everyone who's attempted to be Han Solo, that's what this movie consciously evokes. He gets a Guardians of the Galaxy crew around him, including a mouthy CGI guy (voiced by Jon Favreau). Alden Ehrenreich gets to give his own performance. Unlike Rogue One's horribly botched Tarkin, he isn't asked to imitate someone else. Harrison Ford is Harrison Ford. Instead, Ehrenreich feels a lot more like Chris Pine. True, he's not much like Tony Stark or Jack Sparrow, but that's a good thing. Those were much bigger departures from the archetype, took it places Han Solo ultimately never went. They permanently rogues. Han ultimately isn't.
Emilia Clarke gets another shot at striking big in another franchise (she's the face of Game of Thrones; she didn't really replace anyone's idea of Sarah Connor in Terminator Genisys) as Han's girl. Paul Bettany is her boss, Woody Harrelson is Han's mentor. Thandie Newton shows up, but it's hard to recognize her. Donald Glover plays Lando Calrissian. I love Glover, but he seems to have chosen to underplay the part. Lando's droid plays up that unspoken aspect of Star Wars lore, the subservient nature of droids. Ironically or not it gets plugged into the Millennium Falcon and pretty much forgotten. Lando and Han's scenes seem inspired by Maverick.
I'll always be a Star Wars fan. I love the original trilogy. I love the prequels. I love what the sequels have done so far. I hated Rogue One. I think Solo sums up, with one movie, what Star Wars is all about (minus the Force). I love how it explains the famous Kessel Run. Genius. That alone makes the whole experience worth it.
Iron Man (2008)
rating: ***
the story: Tony Stark is Iron Man.
what it's all about: I've never found Iron Man to be a particularly good movie. It opened the same year as The Dark Knight, which to my mind was a great movie. And of course it gave birth to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), which eventually became the only superhero movie franchise(s) anyone really took seriously. I liked Iron Man 2 a great deal, but the first one? I never felt particularly compelled to watch it again, and in fact it took me ten years (yesterday) to do so again, and my impression of it didn't at all change. This is odd for a number of reasons. One isn't really that it took me so long to rewatch it, but that I really didn't feel like doing so for so long. Instant desire to rewatch was something I had for Dark Knight. I couldn't get enough of Dark Knight. I like superhero movies. I like superheroes in general. Yeah, I'm a DC guy. By this I mean I tend to like DC superheroes and DC storytelling. It's not just the superheroes but the storytelling, too. Marvel doesn't often think of its superheroes in the same way DC does. At the movies, there's really just Logan and the two Amazing Spider-Man movies. Then there's stuff like the cartoonish logic of Bryan Singer's first two X-Men, Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man flicks. Ironically by the third one, which looked the most cartoonish, he finally went somewhere real. So of course fans hated it.
Fans loved Iron Man instantly. Visually it already looked timeless. It still looks timeless. The look of the armor matches up exactly in credibility with what you see in Avengers: Infinity War, ten years later. That's pretty good. It looks totally different than anything superhero movies had done before. That was what made Raimi's Spider-Man pop, what made audiences "believe a man can fly" in 1978. In that sense, of course the MCU took over the popular imagination. It did something no one had seen before, and that always hooks the masses.
But in terms of storytelling...It's awful. Just...awful.
Tony Stark is sold as a tech genius. Great! Fantastic! In 2008, Steve Jobs was a cultural icon! Totally legit! But...Tony Stark isn't sold as a Steve Jobs tech genius. He's sold as...a weapons manufacturer. And that's all he's known for. And...when he says he won't make weapons again...that's it. He's apparently done. Forever. And yet...We see his private lab, and he's got robots working for him. He's got J.A.R.V.I.S., the virtual assistant who would later merge with the android Vision. The rest of the world? Doesn't have those robots. Doesn't have J.A.R.V.I.S. I think Siri wasn't a thing yet, in 2008. Alexa wasn't a thing. And of course, Tony famously keeps Iron Man to himself.
Logistically this is idiotic. In every single sense. It only makes sense if you're trying to explain how Iron Man happens. But in the real world, Iron Man makes no sense. At all. So you have to either accept the insanity of it or you can't. And you see how idiotic the whole plot is.
Even as a weapons manufacturer, taking away everything else, Tony Stark makes no sense as a huge celebrity, appearing on every major magazine cover, as depicted in the film. Weapons manufacturers aren't celebrities. Name one. The only "name" weapons developer I can think of is Oppenheimer, and he was never celebrated like this. When Iron Man 2 shows a vintage video of Tony Stark's dad, it's clearly a pastiche of...Walt Disney. Hilarious, considering the first two Iron Man movies were distributed by...Paramount.
But even the conceit of Tony being captured in the midst of a weapons demonstration...in the field of engagement...That's stupid. I'm really sure that would never happen. And then he gets captured. And he's got shrapnel in his chest, so the bad guys...have the ability to give him tech that needs to be inserted onto/into his chest. That can also be modified to power a suit of armor he makes. Because.
This is the sort of nitpicking fans routinely give movies and/or TV shows they hate. Usually, I try really hard not to do it, because nitpicking usually is even more idiotic than what these fans are attempting to portray as idiotic. It's insipid. It's a poor way to analyze something. In this instance, though, these were problems I noticed immediately. I don't normally instantly have these sorts of problems. I hate how Singer uses Professor X as a macguffin in the first two X-Men movies. Both times the exact same way. It's lazy storytelling, something that needs to happen in order to move the story along because no one bothered to think the story through. In other words, I'm not talking about nitpicking at all (mindlessly being annoyed by story elements while attempting to portray yourself as smarter than the people who developed them), but bad storytelling. I always hate bad storytelling.
And Iron Man is, again, beyond anything else, bad storytelling.
The worst thing? Even as it completely rejuvenates Robert Downey Jr.'s career, making him far more popular and relevant than he's ever been...Iron Man completely wastes and trashes Jeff Bridges in the process. How does that even happen??? And you can sort of tell that it motivated him to seek better material, as suddenly he went into a whole career renaissance (Crazy Heart, True Grit, Hell or High Water) with material that was nothing like his lifeless role in Iron Man, the grizzled iconoclast Tony Stark only wishes he'll become, the culmination of everything Bridges had done before.
And Terrence Howard? Marvel has Terrence Howard, and...nope. Not in Iron Man 2. How does that even happen??? Faran Tahir, who would turn up as a Starfleet captain in the 2009 Star Trek reboot, lamented playing a terrorist in Iron Man. Do you think he ever changed his mind? In Iron Man 3 they change the whole idea of Tahir's role, giving the lead-up to the Mandarin to a sham played by Ben Kingsley. They try and pretend real terrorists were never a part of the story. Yeah!
Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, the Tony Stark assistant who in 2018 would probably be cheering on #MeToo, but instead becomes a slow-burning love interest, who puts up with all of Tony's antics...because. They never even try to develop her character, not in Iron Man, not in any other appearance. Clark Gregg, in his first appearance as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson, is mostly asked to dance around the joke of what S.H.I.E.L.D. actually stands for aside from a very elaborate excuse for an acronym. Leslie Bibb plays a hot chick who's also a reporter for Vanity Fair, which is one of those inexplicable magazines smitten with weapons manufacturer Tony Stark.
Really, it's only Downey Jr. and Bettany who appear fully-formed and presentable for future appearances. Good solid foundation, sure, but...
We learn late in the movie that Bridges' character was in cahoots with Tahir all along, that he set up Tony to die, as he did his father, to kill the golden goose, because...That part is never really made clear. It would make sense if it were because either Stark had figured out what he was doing, but...Yeah. Not in this movie. Not in any movie. He just likes to do away with tech geniuses, I guess. The movie goes out of its way to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that not only is Tony the only person capable of creating the tech he does, but that Bridges' character isn't even in the conversation. In the era of Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? Steve Wozniak???
The funny thing about all this is that 2011's Green Lantern actually borrows a lot of Iron Man's story elements, and does them better, and fans insist to this day that it's a badly made movie, full of plot holes. Really??? In the interests of full disclosure, Green Lantern is based on a DC superhero, and so you can call bias if you like, but for me it's still storytelling. Green Lantern has great storytelling. Iron Man doesn't.
So Iron Man 2 follows it with infinitely better storytelling. Fans disagree. But the insanely popular MCU happens anyway. I can't possibly be upset about that. There's still good material that results from it, the Captain America movies notably.
I'd hope that in the years to come, anyone looking to revisit the whole thing recognizes the first one in the sequence for what it is: a ridiculous mess.
the story: Tony Stark is Iron Man.
what it's all about: I've never found Iron Man to be a particularly good movie. It opened the same year as The Dark Knight, which to my mind was a great movie. And of course it gave birth to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), which eventually became the only superhero movie franchise(s) anyone really took seriously. I liked Iron Man 2 a great deal, but the first one? I never felt particularly compelled to watch it again, and in fact it took me ten years (yesterday) to do so again, and my impression of it didn't at all change. This is odd for a number of reasons. One isn't really that it took me so long to rewatch it, but that I really didn't feel like doing so for so long. Instant desire to rewatch was something I had for Dark Knight. I couldn't get enough of Dark Knight. I like superhero movies. I like superheroes in general. Yeah, I'm a DC guy. By this I mean I tend to like DC superheroes and DC storytelling. It's not just the superheroes but the storytelling, too. Marvel doesn't often think of its superheroes in the same way DC does. At the movies, there's really just Logan and the two Amazing Spider-Man movies. Then there's stuff like the cartoonish logic of Bryan Singer's first two X-Men, Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man flicks. Ironically by the third one, which looked the most cartoonish, he finally went somewhere real. So of course fans hated it.
Fans loved Iron Man instantly. Visually it already looked timeless. It still looks timeless. The look of the armor matches up exactly in credibility with what you see in Avengers: Infinity War, ten years later. That's pretty good. It looks totally different than anything superhero movies had done before. That was what made Raimi's Spider-Man pop, what made audiences "believe a man can fly" in 1978. In that sense, of course the MCU took over the popular imagination. It did something no one had seen before, and that always hooks the masses.
But in terms of storytelling...It's awful. Just...awful.
Tony Stark is sold as a tech genius. Great! Fantastic! In 2008, Steve Jobs was a cultural icon! Totally legit! But...Tony Stark isn't sold as a Steve Jobs tech genius. He's sold as...a weapons manufacturer. And that's all he's known for. And...when he says he won't make weapons again...that's it. He's apparently done. Forever. And yet...We see his private lab, and he's got robots working for him. He's got J.A.R.V.I.S., the virtual assistant who would later merge with the android Vision. The rest of the world? Doesn't have those robots. Doesn't have J.A.R.V.I.S. I think Siri wasn't a thing yet, in 2008. Alexa wasn't a thing. And of course, Tony famously keeps Iron Man to himself.
Logistically this is idiotic. In every single sense. It only makes sense if you're trying to explain how Iron Man happens. But in the real world, Iron Man makes no sense. At all. So you have to either accept the insanity of it or you can't. And you see how idiotic the whole plot is.
Even as a weapons manufacturer, taking away everything else, Tony Stark makes no sense as a huge celebrity, appearing on every major magazine cover, as depicted in the film. Weapons manufacturers aren't celebrities. Name one. The only "name" weapons developer I can think of is Oppenheimer, and he was never celebrated like this. When Iron Man 2 shows a vintage video of Tony Stark's dad, it's clearly a pastiche of...Walt Disney. Hilarious, considering the first two Iron Man movies were distributed by...Paramount.
But even the conceit of Tony being captured in the midst of a weapons demonstration...in the field of engagement...That's stupid. I'm really sure that would never happen. And then he gets captured. And he's got shrapnel in his chest, so the bad guys...have the ability to give him tech that needs to be inserted onto/into his chest. That can also be modified to power a suit of armor he makes. Because.
This is the sort of nitpicking fans routinely give movies and/or TV shows they hate. Usually, I try really hard not to do it, because nitpicking usually is even more idiotic than what these fans are attempting to portray as idiotic. It's insipid. It's a poor way to analyze something. In this instance, though, these were problems I noticed immediately. I don't normally instantly have these sorts of problems. I hate how Singer uses Professor X as a macguffin in the first two X-Men movies. Both times the exact same way. It's lazy storytelling, something that needs to happen in order to move the story along because no one bothered to think the story through. In other words, I'm not talking about nitpicking at all (mindlessly being annoyed by story elements while attempting to portray yourself as smarter than the people who developed them), but bad storytelling. I always hate bad storytelling.
And Iron Man is, again, beyond anything else, bad storytelling.
The worst thing? Even as it completely rejuvenates Robert Downey Jr.'s career, making him far more popular and relevant than he's ever been...Iron Man completely wastes and trashes Jeff Bridges in the process. How does that even happen??? And you can sort of tell that it motivated him to seek better material, as suddenly he went into a whole career renaissance (Crazy Heart, True Grit, Hell or High Water) with material that was nothing like his lifeless role in Iron Man, the grizzled iconoclast Tony Stark only wishes he'll become, the culmination of everything Bridges had done before.
And Terrence Howard? Marvel has Terrence Howard, and...nope. Not in Iron Man 2. How does that even happen??? Faran Tahir, who would turn up as a Starfleet captain in the 2009 Star Trek reboot, lamented playing a terrorist in Iron Man. Do you think he ever changed his mind? In Iron Man 3 they change the whole idea of Tahir's role, giving the lead-up to the Mandarin to a sham played by Ben Kingsley. They try and pretend real terrorists were never a part of the story. Yeah!
Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, the Tony Stark assistant who in 2018 would probably be cheering on #MeToo, but instead becomes a slow-burning love interest, who puts up with all of Tony's antics...because. They never even try to develop her character, not in Iron Man, not in any other appearance. Clark Gregg, in his first appearance as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson, is mostly asked to dance around the joke of what S.H.I.E.L.D. actually stands for aside from a very elaborate excuse for an acronym. Leslie Bibb plays a hot chick who's also a reporter for Vanity Fair, which is one of those inexplicable magazines smitten with weapons manufacturer Tony Stark.
Really, it's only Downey Jr. and Bettany who appear fully-formed and presentable for future appearances. Good solid foundation, sure, but...
We learn late in the movie that Bridges' character was in cahoots with Tahir all along, that he set up Tony to die, as he did his father, to kill the golden goose, because...That part is never really made clear. It would make sense if it were because either Stark had figured out what he was doing, but...Yeah. Not in this movie. Not in any movie. He just likes to do away with tech geniuses, I guess. The movie goes out of its way to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that not only is Tony the only person capable of creating the tech he does, but that Bridges' character isn't even in the conversation. In the era of Steve Jobs? Bill Gates? Steve Wozniak???
The funny thing about all this is that 2011's Green Lantern actually borrows a lot of Iron Man's story elements, and does them better, and fans insist to this day that it's a badly made movie, full of plot holes. Really??? In the interests of full disclosure, Green Lantern is based on a DC superhero, and so you can call bias if you like, but for me it's still storytelling. Green Lantern has great storytelling. Iron Man doesn't.
So Iron Man 2 follows it with infinitely better storytelling. Fans disagree. But the insanely popular MCU happens anyway. I can't possibly be upset about that. There's still good material that results from it, the Captain America movies notably.
I'd hope that in the years to come, anyone looking to revisit the whole thing recognizes the first one in the sequence for what it is: a ridiculous mess.
Monday, May 14, 2018
2008 Capsule Reviews
The Dark Knight
rating: *****
review: Best known for Heath Ledger's iconic Joker, this may yet prove to be the definitive superhero story of its era.
The Fall
rating: *****
review: Tarsem's brilliantly imagined, and visualized, portrait of a suicidal stuntman and the little girl who saves his life.
In Bruges
rating: ****
review: Colin Farrell has found his most universal acclaim as a hitman struggling with the accidental killing of a child. It may help that it features his most brash performance since his breakthrough, Tigerland.
Hancock
rating: ****
review: Come for Will Smith's degenerate superhero, stay for the unexpected twist.
Cassandra's Dream
rating: ****
review: I prefer to think of this Woody Allen flick as Colin Farrell's answer to In Bruges, as a guy tortured by a decision he made.
Che
rating: ****
review: Regardless of what you think about his legacy, this is a brilliant depiction of Che's activities, perhaps the essential film from Soderbergh and Benicio Del Toro.
W.
rating: ****
review: Oliver Stone presents a fascinatingly sympathetic portrait of the second-most recent controversial Republican president. Between this and Nixon, can we expect a Trump biopic in the years to come?
Pride & Glory
rating: ****
review: Gavin O'Connor, Joe Carnahan, Edward Norton, and Colin Farrell collide. A can't-miss combination of talents.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
rating: ****
review: Between Jason Segal's career-altering puppetry (which led directly to a revival of The Muppets) and Russell Brand's ideal role (as pompous rock star Aldous Snow, who was later featured in his own movie, Get Him to the Greek), this one rises well above the typical raunch comedy template.
Yes Man
rating: ****
review: Jim Carrey's increasingly gimmicked-oriented comedies might have begun to feel too obvious, but it's certainly worth the nonsense to enjoy, well, the nonsense, as well as Zooey Deschanel increasingly sneaking herself into a side music career.
Seven Pounds
rating: ****
review: One of Will Smith's signature dramatic performances.
The Happening
rating: ****
review: M. Night Shyamalan's most pure experience, a totally inexplicable event that can only be experienced, his ultimate rebellion against the twist ending backlash.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
review: ****
review: An incredibly tough act for Brad Pitt to follow, the culmination of the career he sought to avoid (that moment when he's back in his handsome prime) and the one he actively pursued for years (without having to come up with a weird character, because the role is inherently weird).
Doomsday
review: ****
review: Mad Max without Mad Max.
The Wrestler
review: ****
review: Even though it mostly botches what professional wrestling is actually like behind the façade, it still finds the beating heart behind it.
The Other Boleyn Girl
rating: ****
review: Ambition truly becomes nightmare; the ultimate Natalie Portman experience (no swans needed, black or otherwise).
Body of Lies
rating: ****
review: Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio clash (or, reunite nearly fifteen years after The Quick and the Dead).
Cloverfield
rating: ****
review: Found-footage saga about a Godzilla event that effectively uses the format.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
rating: ****
review: I'm no Indy connoisseur, but I enjoyed this later follow-up. The more iconic the storytelling (as in The Last Crusade), the better I like this pulp hero.
Frost/Nixon
rating: ****
review: Post-resignation, everyone wanted a "gotcha" moment from Nixon. This is the story of the closest anyone ever came.
Burn After Reading
rating: ****
review: Hilarious and alarming tale of a lot of idiots.
Quantum of Solace
rating: ****
review: Before the sensation of Daniel Craig's Bond had sunk in, his second outing was allowed to exist at the same level as the first, and few have yet appreciated that fact.
Step Brothers
rating: ****
review: The combination of Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly always creates something special; if you can make it through their ridiculous shenanigans, you'll be happy for their happy ending.
The Love Guru
rating: ***
review: Mike Myers comes up with another great character, but there's not really much of a story to tell around him.
Smart People
rating: ***
review: A lot of great actors are depressed.
Vantage Point
rating: ***
review: A kind of wasted opportunity to spotlight a bunch of interesting actors.
Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who!
rating: ***
review: Jim Carrey is at last reduced to a cartoon, but strangely it's one of his most subdued performances.
Get Smart
rating: ***
review: Steve Carell essentially replicates his Office persona with another TV show remake, this time on the big screen.
Iron Man
rating: ***
review: Movie that launched a juggernaut. Relatively humble origins. I always compared Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark to Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. These solo movies are really why the fourth and fifth Pirates of the Caribbean movies were such huge mistakes, because that outsize personality needs equally interesting surroundings.
Leatherheads
rating: ***
review: George Clooney in one of his more blatant attempts to mine his Old Hollywood appeal.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
rating: ***
review: Later remade as Thor: The Dark World.
Revolutionary Road
rating: ***
review: Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio reunite under considerably more subdued happenings.
Bottle Shock
rating: ***
review: The most compelling thing about this one is Chris Pine just before Kirk.
Charlie Bartlett
rating: ***
review: The late Anton Yelchin in an early spotlight.
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
rating: ***
review: Personally, I love Simon Pegg as a leading man, but I think for most other movie fans, the title of this movie is fairly accurate.
Hamlet 2
rating: ***
review: Steve Coogan is crazy enough to stage that play.
Meet Dave
rating: ***
review: Eddie Murphy beginning to concede that audiences aren't really showing up for his act anymore.
21
rating: ***
review: Jim Sturgess in his bid for casual fans.
Tropic Thunder
rating: ***
review: This parody of '80s action flicks has a gonzo Robert Downey Jr. performance going for it, and a highly overrated Tom Cruise supporting role.
Run Fat Boy Run
rating: ***
review: Honestly, the best thing about Simon Pegg roles is that he's really the only actor who could pull them off.
Speed Racer
rating: ***
review: A lot of times, when filmmakers are trying to reclaim past popularity they try to do variations of what used to work. That's what the Wachowskis have been doing since the Matrix sequels cool interest in the original. This is a glossy pastiche of a semblance of the original mystique.
Valkyrie
rating: ***
review: Tom Cruise was ramping up his comeback at the time, and thought this big dramatic we-almost-killed-Hitler flick would help out. Didn't really.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
rating: **
review: What if you replace the Egyptian mummy thing with a Chinese mummy thing? Turns out it's a recipe for irrelevance.
WALL-E
rating: **
review: This was a short stretched awkwardly into a feature-length film. Nothing more, nothing less.
Slumdog Millionaire
rating: **
review: An embarrassing attempt to legitimize a colonial view of India.
Romulus, My Father
rating: **
review: Low-key Eric Bana drama.
Babylon A.D.
rating: **
review: Vin Diesel attempting another big franchise. He has yet to learn that they always happen by accident, for him, and never by design.
RockNRolla
rating: **
review: I'd watch this again for the Tom Hardy supporting role, but otherwise British gangster movies aren't generally my thing.
Last Chance Harvey
rating: **
review: Dustin Hoffman went through this whole period where he didn't seem relevant anymore, and the harder he tried the worse he failed. This was one of his better efforts.
Twilight
rating: **
review: Obviously the movies, and the books, were a huge success, but there's very little life in this first entry. Heh.
The Spirit
rating: **
review: Frank Miller reengineers the Will Eisner strip into a movie much like the Robert Rodriquez movies based on his Sin City comics. Probably mostly of interest to diehards of those movies.
Deception
rating: **
review: Wants to be edgy drama, but...one of Hugh Jackman's true misfires.
88 Minutes
rating: **
review: Huge fan of Neal McDonough, but it's a shame his best bid for a breakout movie role was this unbalanced Al Pacino flick.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
rating: **
review: Star Wars so horribly lack perspective that they legitimately claim the TV material that followed this is better than the prequels.
Australia
rating: **
review: Another relative misfire in casting for Hugh Jackman.
Jumper
rating: **
review: Bid to jumpstart Hayden Christensen's popular career post-Star Wars falls short.
The Incredible Hulk
rating: **
review: Total waste of Edward Norton in the second of two Hulk movies that blow up the monster size and have no idea what to do with it. If you're trying to recreate King Kong rather than Frankenstein? Find a tall building.
Wanted
rating: *
review: Far too smug.
Boarding Gate
rating: *
review: Asia Argento in a European action flick.
Superhero Movie
rating: *
review: Ha! They made this parody far too early! But actually a pretty good Spider-Man movie, all considered.
Funny Games
rating: *
review: Dreadful European horror.
rating: *****
review: Best known for Heath Ledger's iconic Joker, this may yet prove to be the definitive superhero story of its era.
The Fall
rating: *****
review: Tarsem's brilliantly imagined, and visualized, portrait of a suicidal stuntman and the little girl who saves his life.
In Bruges
rating: ****
review: Colin Farrell has found his most universal acclaim as a hitman struggling with the accidental killing of a child. It may help that it features his most brash performance since his breakthrough, Tigerland.
Hancock
rating: ****
review: Come for Will Smith's degenerate superhero, stay for the unexpected twist.
Cassandra's Dream
rating: ****
review: I prefer to think of this Woody Allen flick as Colin Farrell's answer to In Bruges, as a guy tortured by a decision he made.
Che
rating: ****
review: Regardless of what you think about his legacy, this is a brilliant depiction of Che's activities, perhaps the essential film from Soderbergh and Benicio Del Toro.
W.
rating: ****
review: Oliver Stone presents a fascinatingly sympathetic portrait of the second-most recent controversial Republican president. Between this and Nixon, can we expect a Trump biopic in the years to come?
Pride & Glory
rating: ****
review: Gavin O'Connor, Joe Carnahan, Edward Norton, and Colin Farrell collide. A can't-miss combination of talents.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
rating: ****
review: Between Jason Segal's career-altering puppetry (which led directly to a revival of The Muppets) and Russell Brand's ideal role (as pompous rock star Aldous Snow, who was later featured in his own movie, Get Him to the Greek), this one rises well above the typical raunch comedy template.
Yes Man
rating: ****
review: Jim Carrey's increasingly gimmicked-oriented comedies might have begun to feel too obvious, but it's certainly worth the nonsense to enjoy, well, the nonsense, as well as Zooey Deschanel increasingly sneaking herself into a side music career.
Seven Pounds
rating: ****
review: One of Will Smith's signature dramatic performances.
The Happening
rating: ****
review: M. Night Shyamalan's most pure experience, a totally inexplicable event that can only be experienced, his ultimate rebellion against the twist ending backlash.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
review: ****
review: An incredibly tough act for Brad Pitt to follow, the culmination of the career he sought to avoid (that moment when he's back in his handsome prime) and the one he actively pursued for years (without having to come up with a weird character, because the role is inherently weird).
Doomsday
review: ****
review: Mad Max without Mad Max.
The Wrestler
review: ****
review: Even though it mostly botches what professional wrestling is actually like behind the façade, it still finds the beating heart behind it.
The Other Boleyn Girl
rating: ****
review: Ambition truly becomes nightmare; the ultimate Natalie Portman experience (no swans needed, black or otherwise).
Body of Lies
rating: ****
review: Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio clash (or, reunite nearly fifteen years after The Quick and the Dead).
Cloverfield
rating: ****
review: Found-footage saga about a Godzilla event that effectively uses the format.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
rating: ****
review: I'm no Indy connoisseur, but I enjoyed this later follow-up. The more iconic the storytelling (as in The Last Crusade), the better I like this pulp hero.
Frost/Nixon
rating: ****
review: Post-resignation, everyone wanted a "gotcha" moment from Nixon. This is the story of the closest anyone ever came.
Burn After Reading
rating: ****
review: Hilarious and alarming tale of a lot of idiots.
Quantum of Solace
rating: ****
review: Before the sensation of Daniel Craig's Bond had sunk in, his second outing was allowed to exist at the same level as the first, and few have yet appreciated that fact.
Step Brothers
rating: ****
review: The combination of Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly always creates something special; if you can make it through their ridiculous shenanigans, you'll be happy for their happy ending.
The Love Guru
rating: ***
review: Mike Myers comes up with another great character, but there's not really much of a story to tell around him.
Smart People
rating: ***
review: A lot of great actors are depressed.
Vantage Point
rating: ***
review: A kind of wasted opportunity to spotlight a bunch of interesting actors.
Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who!
rating: ***
review: Jim Carrey is at last reduced to a cartoon, but strangely it's one of his most subdued performances.
Get Smart
rating: ***
review: Steve Carell essentially replicates his Office persona with another TV show remake, this time on the big screen.
Iron Man
rating: ***
review: Movie that launched a juggernaut. Relatively humble origins. I always compared Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark to Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. These solo movies are really why the fourth and fifth Pirates of the Caribbean movies were such huge mistakes, because that outsize personality needs equally interesting surroundings.
Leatherheads
rating: ***
review: George Clooney in one of his more blatant attempts to mine his Old Hollywood appeal.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
rating: ***
review: Later remade as Thor: The Dark World.
Revolutionary Road
rating: ***
review: Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio reunite under considerably more subdued happenings.
Bottle Shock
rating: ***
review: The most compelling thing about this one is Chris Pine just before Kirk.
Charlie Bartlett
rating: ***
review: The late Anton Yelchin in an early spotlight.
How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
rating: ***
review: Personally, I love Simon Pegg as a leading man, but I think for most other movie fans, the title of this movie is fairly accurate.
Hamlet 2
rating: ***
review: Steve Coogan is crazy enough to stage that play.
Meet Dave
rating: ***
review: Eddie Murphy beginning to concede that audiences aren't really showing up for his act anymore.
21
rating: ***
review: Jim Sturgess in his bid for casual fans.
Tropic Thunder
rating: ***
review: This parody of '80s action flicks has a gonzo Robert Downey Jr. performance going for it, and a highly overrated Tom Cruise supporting role.
Run Fat Boy Run
rating: ***
review: Honestly, the best thing about Simon Pegg roles is that he's really the only actor who could pull them off.
Speed Racer
rating: ***
review: A lot of times, when filmmakers are trying to reclaim past popularity they try to do variations of what used to work. That's what the Wachowskis have been doing since the Matrix sequels cool interest in the original. This is a glossy pastiche of a semblance of the original mystique.
Valkyrie
rating: ***
review: Tom Cruise was ramping up his comeback at the time, and thought this big dramatic we-almost-killed-Hitler flick would help out. Didn't really.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
rating: **
review: What if you replace the Egyptian mummy thing with a Chinese mummy thing? Turns out it's a recipe for irrelevance.
WALL-E
rating: **
review: This was a short stretched awkwardly into a feature-length film. Nothing more, nothing less.
Slumdog Millionaire
rating: **
review: An embarrassing attempt to legitimize a colonial view of India.
Romulus, My Father
rating: **
review: Low-key Eric Bana drama.
Babylon A.D.
rating: **
review: Vin Diesel attempting another big franchise. He has yet to learn that they always happen by accident, for him, and never by design.
RockNRolla
rating: **
review: I'd watch this again for the Tom Hardy supporting role, but otherwise British gangster movies aren't generally my thing.
Last Chance Harvey
rating: **
review: Dustin Hoffman went through this whole period where he didn't seem relevant anymore, and the harder he tried the worse he failed. This was one of his better efforts.
Twilight
rating: **
review: Obviously the movies, and the books, were a huge success, but there's very little life in this first entry. Heh.
The Spirit
rating: **
review: Frank Miller reengineers the Will Eisner strip into a movie much like the Robert Rodriquez movies based on his Sin City comics. Probably mostly of interest to diehards of those movies.
Deception
rating: **
review: Wants to be edgy drama, but...one of Hugh Jackman's true misfires.
88 Minutes
rating: **
review: Huge fan of Neal McDonough, but it's a shame his best bid for a breakout movie role was this unbalanced Al Pacino flick.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars
rating: **
review: Star Wars so horribly lack perspective that they legitimately claim the TV material that followed this is better than the prequels.
Australia
rating: **
review: Another relative misfire in casting for Hugh Jackman.
Jumper
rating: **
review: Bid to jumpstart Hayden Christensen's popular career post-Star Wars falls short.
The Incredible Hulk
rating: **
review: Total waste of Edward Norton in the second of two Hulk movies that blow up the monster size and have no idea what to do with it. If you're trying to recreate King Kong rather than Frankenstein? Find a tall building.
Wanted
rating: *
review: Far too smug.
Boarding Gate
rating: *
review: Asia Argento in a European action flick.
Superhero Movie
rating: *
review: Ha! They made this parody far too early! But actually a pretty good Spider-Man movie, all considered.
Funny Games
rating: *
review: Dreadful European horror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)