A 'crushable' Rock + 2 blonde moppets + a decent villain + a worthy script = a better-than-expected remake
Lunanshee and I were both hesitant and hopeful that Race to Witch Mountain would be a good movie. "Remakes" usually aren't, but there have been some "Updates" that have been pretty good, and this is one.
Cheers to AnnaSophia Robb, who does the "heavy-lifting" in terms of acting. Alexander Ludwig is a nice-looking young man who manages to look like the McCartney brothers, when they were still youthfully thin. Other than that, I believe that he had a large hand in utterly ruining The Seeker: the Dark is Rising!
Ciaran Hinds makes a delightful villain who will stop at nothing to nab the kids/aliens. The Rock (who can bear to call him Dwayne Johnson?) proves that he is pretty adept at comic roles while being oddly attractive and immensely likable. He was a good choice for the person on whom the narrative rests. Carla Gugino makes a good match for him, both in temperament and talent, although she is perhaps a little less of a comedian. I find her career choices to be more varied, however, and apparently this one is a winner (and one with franchise-potential).
I'm not nearly the fan that Lunanshee is for the source material. For instance, I didn't recognize either of the actors from the original films in this new version (thanks to IMDB.com for that trivia). On reviewing Escape to Witch Mountain after seeing this movie, I'd have to conclude that both are very firmly the products of their time. I am thinking of the environmental mission of the siblings in Race and the quality of the effects for both films (top-notch for their respective periods). I think the two can be admired separately, but similarly. Most of all, I applaud Disney for continuing to make live-action movies where no one is a buffoon (particularly the adults, who often are made to suffer as foils for intrepid children) and where intelligence and talent are supported but not idolized. Aside from a few (obligatory?) banal lines, the script was also worthy of the project. I will go to see the sequel, and look forward to seeing more of the funny side of The Rock.
March 18, 2009
March 17, 2009
Are we lame, or just the movies?
Yep, it has been a dreadfully long time since either my-partner-in-film or I have posted anything new. I would say that this is a sign that we are pretty busy, so that is good in it's way. The downer is that neither of us have been really excited about movies for what feels like months. I will try to be better, but it still feels as if the pickings are slim. I hope you guys are having a better time.
July 22, 2008
The Dark Knight
Committed acting + great effects + non-stop action = knockout sequel
Wow, it is hard to think of what to say about this movie, even two days after seeing it! It was fantastic and worth every single bit of high praise from the other 'critics'. Usually, a movie doesn't get such a strong word-of-mouth from 'established' sources, but it turned out to be true. I would have to say that this is one of the top 40 or so movies that I have seen; it's an all-around tight package. The plot was the weakest part of the entire production, but even that is hard to criticize. The acting in it brings to mind words like "fearless", on everyone's part, not just Heath Ledger's (more on him in a moment; see 'Comments')
I can't wait to see it again; I am already planning an IMAX venture. Normally, I would not pay $12+ to see anything except for Cirque du Soleil or one of my few favorite bands, much less a movie (Hey, when we are talking about a "volume" of film-going like mine, you have to pinch some pennies somewhere!). I cannot wait to see how the action unfolds, now that I am more familiar with the plot, and I want to watch it spin past in super-duper-widescreen format.
I can't comment on the technical aspects of the movie right now; I was too busy watching the characters to care about something like that. Usually, I only notice the film-making when I am
a) annoyed by the crud-iness of it,
b) bored
c) entranced by it's beauty and utterly charmed
this film didn't do any of the above for me because it is like Teflon; professionally slick.
Now, on to a discussion of the performances (which you can't help but notice):
Aaron Eckhart- Usually amusing, if not great, he really made it look easy to embody a golden-boy who is the reciprocal of Batman. I was very impressed and wished that they had left his conversion to Two-Face until the next movie so that it could have been relished at greater length. (As it was, I started to worry that Chris Nolan was falling prey to the same desire to stuff too many villains in one movie--ex: Batman Forever, Batman & Robin) The Two-Face make-up was horrifically grisly.
Maggie Gyllenhaal- Miles more convincing than Katie Holmes as a woman who could attract a nearly-sociopathic 'good guy' like Bruce Wayne and still hold her own. In particular, I admired her confident, sensual swagger--like any good weapon, she hid it away until she needed it. Continuity of actors is important to me, but in this case, I am all for seeing more of Ms. Gyllenhaal. I don't think the audience would have been nearly so involved if they had watched Holmes in the role, particularly in the warehouse scene (nope, no spoilers here).
Michael Caine- He brings such a posh elder-cool to Alfred Pennyworth that you begin to forget about his official 'butler' status while he is a calm touchstone and foil for Bruce's passionate convictions. Can I have a grandfather like him?
Christian Bale- I don't know why he can still surprise me with his acting ability (I should expect almost-flawless work from him by now), but even behind a mask, he can still carry the show while subtly stealing it. This in light of the fact that there was a greater 'Batman: Bruce' ratio in this movie than Batman Begins (nearly all 'Bruce: Batman'). Really, who else can be so pleasant to watch when all you can see is his teeth? And cute, pointy little teeth that they are...
Morgan Freeman- Also has a corner of the "elder-cool" market like Caine which he usually uses, even in disasters like The Big Bounce. This time he was not only bemused, but believably conflicted by his employer's antics. His character is one of the most human.
Sequels are typically not as good as the first movie, but this one blows its predecessor out of the water. maybe after I've had another viewing and more time to let it sink in will I be able to be more articulate than "Wow"...
For my commentary on Ledger's performance, see 'Comments'
Wow, it is hard to think of what to say about this movie, even two days after seeing it! It was fantastic and worth every single bit of high praise from the other 'critics'. Usually, a movie doesn't get such a strong word-of-mouth from 'established' sources, but it turned out to be true. I would have to say that this is one of the top 40 or so movies that I have seen; it's an all-around tight package. The plot was the weakest part of the entire production, but even that is hard to criticize. The acting in it brings to mind words like "fearless", on everyone's part, not just Heath Ledger's (more on him in a moment; see 'Comments')
I can't wait to see it again; I am already planning an IMAX venture. Normally, I would not pay $12+ to see anything except for Cirque du Soleil or one of my few favorite bands, much less a movie (Hey, when we are talking about a "volume" of film-going like mine, you have to pinch some pennies somewhere!). I cannot wait to see how the action unfolds, now that I am more familiar with the plot, and I want to watch it spin past in super-duper-widescreen format.
I can't comment on the technical aspects of the movie right now; I was too busy watching the characters to care about something like that. Usually, I only notice the film-making when I am
a) annoyed by the crud-iness of it,
b) bored
c) entranced by it's beauty and utterly charmed
this film didn't do any of the above for me because it is like Teflon; professionally slick.
Now, on to a discussion of the performances (which you can't help but notice):
Aaron Eckhart- Usually amusing, if not great, he really made it look easy to embody a golden-boy who is the reciprocal of Batman. I was very impressed and wished that they had left his conversion to Two-Face until the next movie so that it could have been relished at greater length. (As it was, I started to worry that Chris Nolan was falling prey to the same desire to stuff too many villains in one movie--ex: Batman Forever, Batman & Robin) The Two-Face make-up was horrifically grisly.
Maggie Gyllenhaal- Miles more convincing than Katie Holmes as a woman who could attract a nearly-sociopathic 'good guy' like Bruce Wayne and still hold her own. In particular, I admired her confident, sensual swagger--like any good weapon, she hid it away until she needed it. Continuity of actors is important to me, but in this case, I am all for seeing more of Ms. Gyllenhaal. I don't think the audience would have been nearly so involved if they had watched Holmes in the role, particularly in the warehouse scene (nope, no spoilers here).
Michael Caine- He brings such a posh elder-cool to Alfred Pennyworth that you begin to forget about his official 'butler' status while he is a calm touchstone and foil for Bruce's passionate convictions. Can I have a grandfather like him?
Christian Bale- I don't know why he can still surprise me with his acting ability (I should expect almost-flawless work from him by now), but even behind a mask, he can still carry the show while subtly stealing it. This in light of the fact that there was a greater 'Batman: Bruce' ratio in this movie than Batman Begins (nearly all 'Bruce: Batman'). Really, who else can be so pleasant to watch when all you can see is his teeth? And cute, pointy little teeth that they are...
Morgan Freeman- Also has a corner of the "elder-cool" market like Caine which he usually uses, even in disasters like The Big Bounce. This time he was not only bemused, but believably conflicted by his employer's antics. His character is one of the most human.
Sequels are typically not as good as the first movie, but this one blows its predecessor out of the water. maybe after I've had another viewing and more time to let it sink in will I be able to be more articulate than "Wow"...
For my commentary on Ledger's performance, see 'Comments'
July 8, 2008
Hancock
(Big-name acting + uneven story + explosions + laughable 3rd act villain) - stinky critics = satisfying summer movie
I liked the movie more than I thought I would, particularly in spite of the negative buzz.
I read the reviews for Hancock, and I went anyway because the trailer was engaging. What I came to realize is that the action in the trailer only covers about half of the plot; there is a lot more to this story. Perhaps too much; I wish there was a graphic novel that might elaborate on some of the ideas because I found them far more intriguing than the reluctant-hero premise that was trumpeted all spring. Unfortunately, loading exposition into the movie in the second and third acts makes for an unwieldy plot that tipped into the overwrought before correcting itself. Still, the twist that so many critics are excoriating made the movie more interesting, even if it was "too little, too late."
One thing about the trailer that puzzled me was the absence of Charlize Theron. Her talent is on par with Smith (even if her 'brand' is not), and I think a level above Bateman, therefore she deserved some 'teaser time' too. After the credits, I was pretty satisfied with her character and the amount of focus on her. It is always a pleasure to watch the beautiful Ms. Theron do anything---and the lady can act! Even though her climactic scene was more than a little over-the-top, she sold the action. Had a less capable actress been chosen, I admit the result would have been worth derision. The character's struggle was colossal but (for me) intensely relatable, which only served to draw me in further.
After seeing the trailer, I commented to Lunanshee that I thought there are very few people aside from Will Smith who could make Hancock a likeble anti-hero. After seeing the film, I still feel the same way, and I am positive that he is a big enough draw to entice moviegoers to ignore the "pooh-pooh's" 'official' critics. I do have to ask, "What was up with those pencil-thin sideburns?" They were a little too "inner-city" for me (I saw that kind of thing in high school), so it is a fashion that I am hoping does not catch on.
The most poorly drawn character out of all of them was Eddie Marsan's villain "Red". The guy can act, but he was not given much to work with. I thought his character was also "too little, too late", which minimized both his menace and his believability. I think the character was useful in the bank-robbing sequence, but after that, he should have remained in jail to fume, not to plot further. What came afterwards was ridiculously contrived and I feel that the screenwriters really could have brought about the climax in a more believable way. Instead, they invented a guy who was merely a tool, in both senses of the word.
Although it is flawed, I really liked Hancock. Sure, it is a BIG SUMMER MOVIE, full of explosions and chase scenes, but aren't those the best kind anyway?
I liked the movie more than I thought I would, particularly in spite of the negative buzz.
I read the reviews for Hancock, and I went anyway because the trailer was engaging. What I came to realize is that the action in the trailer only covers about half of the plot; there is a lot more to this story. Perhaps too much; I wish there was a graphic novel that might elaborate on some of the ideas because I found them far more intriguing than the reluctant-hero premise that was trumpeted all spring. Unfortunately, loading exposition into the movie in the second and third acts makes for an unwieldy plot that tipped into the overwrought before correcting itself. Still, the twist that so many critics are excoriating made the movie more interesting, even if it was "too little, too late."
One thing about the trailer that puzzled me was the absence of Charlize Theron. Her talent is on par with Smith (even if her 'brand' is not), and I think a level above Bateman, therefore she deserved some 'teaser time' too. After the credits, I was pretty satisfied with her character and the amount of focus on her. It is always a pleasure to watch the beautiful Ms. Theron do anything---and the lady can act! Even though her climactic scene was more than a little over-the-top, she sold the action. Had a less capable actress been chosen, I admit the result would have been worth derision. The character's struggle was colossal but (for me) intensely relatable, which only served to draw me in further.
After seeing the trailer, I commented to Lunanshee that I thought there are very few people aside from Will Smith who could make Hancock a likeble anti-hero. After seeing the film, I still feel the same way, and I am positive that he is a big enough draw to entice moviegoers to ignore the "pooh-pooh's" 'official' critics. I do have to ask, "What was up with those pencil-thin sideburns?" They were a little too "inner-city" for me (I saw that kind of thing in high school), so it is a fashion that I am hoping does not catch on.
The most poorly drawn character out of all of them was Eddie Marsan's villain "Red". The guy can act, but he was not given much to work with. I thought his character was also "too little, too late", which minimized both his menace and his believability. I think the character was useful in the bank-robbing sequence, but after that, he should have remained in jail to fume, not to plot further. What came afterwards was ridiculously contrived and I feel that the screenwriters really could have brought about the climax in a more believable way. Instead, they invented a guy who was merely a tool, in both senses of the word.
Although it is flawed, I really liked Hancock. Sure, it is a BIG SUMMER MOVIE, full of explosions and chase scenes, but aren't those the best kind anyway?
July 2, 2008
They Said What? vol. 1
...And here's another "news" item that I cannot refrain from commenting upon. Thus begins another blog-column!
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255124
To tell you the truth Dan, neither did we... (Please discuss)
Radcliffe: 'New Potter is like Trainspotting'
Actor Daniel Radcliffe has compared the latest Harry Potter installment to cult movie Trainspotting - insisting the new film contains "a fair amount of sexual energy and drug parallels".This "Huh?!?" moment can be found here:
Radcliffe recently finished filming the sixth Potter movie - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which is due for release in November.
And the star insists that there are moments in the picture which are very similar to scenes in Ewan McGregor's controversial 1996 film.
He says, "There's a fair amount of sexual energy and drug parallels. We have a couple of Trainspotting moments.
"That's two films I never thought would be mentioned in the same breath."
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255124
To tell you the truth Dan, neither did we... (Please discuss)
Signs of the Apocalypse, vol. 1
I've decided that this blog needs to have a place to comment upon/marvel at the ridiculous-ness of studio execs and the movies they plan to make. I am no fan of Will Ferrell (excepting Stranger than Fiction) and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle must be spinning in his grave. Really, this is even more egregious than the 2004 mishap that was Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan going Around the World in 80 Days!
In my opinion, it is all over when we start butchering our classics deliberately.
This little nugget of cultural destruction found at:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255126
In my opinion, it is all over when we start butchering our classics deliberately.
Ferrell and Cohen to star in Holmes Movie
Comedians Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron Cohen will star in a forthcoming film about fictional detective Sherlock Holmes.
Ali G funnyman Cohen will play the pipe-smoking sleuth, with Ferrell as his partner Watson in the as-yet-untitled film.
Matt Tolmach, co-president of production for Columbia Pictures, tells Variety.com, "Just the idea of Sacha and Will as Sherlock Holmes and Watson makes us laugh.
"Sacha and Will are two of the funniest and most talented guys on the planet, and having them take on these two iconic characters is frankly hilarious."
This little nugget of cultural destruction found at:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0255126
June 30, 2008
The Fall
Pan's Labyrinth-like visuals - del Toro creepiness + Lee Pace x 2 storylines = a glorious mess
I wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer on Apple.com trailers months ago. Then it gets a very select release, which did not include Austin or Houston. Then it comes to the indie-theater in Austin and promptly gets slammed in the paper. Then, no one will go see it with me. So I went by myself. I liked the movie, but it is deeply, almost superbly flawed.
In fact, I feel like I need to see the movie again to try to understand it. I'm already looking forward to the DVD (but I will have to wait...some more...until Sept.) so that I can hear what the director has to say for himself. I've heard interesting rumors, like he piggy-backed filming this one on the backs of other, higher budget pictures, and that he allowed the 5 year-old star ad lib a lot. Those two facts kind of explain the dis-jointedness of the plot(s). I don't always have to understand what is going on (ex: Stay, a pretty stinky movie, but worth seeing once, for free. However, I do not understand what is so great about Mulholland Dr.) and the storytelling doesn't always have to be linear (ex: Pulp Fiction is a classic), and I can handle two plotlines simultaneously (I read Robert Jordan), but this topped all of that with a generous dollop of confusion. It is Tarsem's pet project; the one he sweated over for years. For his sake, I wish that this movie was slated for more box-office success, but sadly it doesn't live up to the promise of the intriguing trailer.
I will admit that it was pretty charming to have the story be re-written on the screen as it went--this happens in storytelling. Also as with real life, the inaccuracy of the teller is revealed (men from India don't have "squaws") and I like the movie a little bit more for that, even if it is tough to overlook at first.
All in all, it was a gorgeous exercise in cinema. The visuals in the film were stunning and are worth going for. I adore watching Lee Pace, with eye-liner and a mask or without, so I showed up for that reason. The movie was pretty much free for me, so I had nothing but time to lose, and I think it was well-spent for all of the movie's flaws. I would not suggest that other people spend the money to see it in the theater (unless they'd like to support said indie theater, because we need to have them around to cleanse our palates after gorging on huge mainstream movies); best to wait for video on this one, folks. I don't think most people would like the movie, but if you can be patient enough to let the story unfold, it is a rough-cut gem of a film. The biggest plus (in my opinion) was that it was not as dark and plain yucky as Pan's Labyrinth; that is a movie that was a waste of time. Storytelling movies like P's L and Big Fish were let-downs for me, while The Fall and Secondhand Lions were not.
One of these days, the perfect yarn of a movie will come along, but this is not it.
I wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer on Apple.com trailers months ago. Then it gets a very select release, which did not include Austin or Houston. Then it comes to the indie-theater in Austin and promptly gets slammed in the paper. Then, no one will go see it with me. So I went by myself. I liked the movie, but it is deeply, almost superbly flawed.
In fact, I feel like I need to see the movie again to try to understand it. I'm already looking forward to the DVD (but I will have to wait...some more...until Sept.) so that I can hear what the director has to say for himself. I've heard interesting rumors, like he piggy-backed filming this one on the backs of other, higher budget pictures, and that he allowed the 5 year-old star ad lib a lot. Those two facts kind of explain the dis-jointedness of the plot(s). I don't always have to understand what is going on (ex: Stay, a pretty stinky movie, but worth seeing once, for free. However, I do not understand what is so great about Mulholland Dr.) and the storytelling doesn't always have to be linear (ex: Pulp Fiction is a classic), and I can handle two plotlines simultaneously (I read Robert Jordan), but this topped all of that with a generous dollop of confusion. It is Tarsem's pet project; the one he sweated over for years. For his sake, I wish that this movie was slated for more box-office success, but sadly it doesn't live up to the promise of the intriguing trailer.
I will admit that it was pretty charming to have the story be re-written on the screen as it went--this happens in storytelling. Also as with real life, the inaccuracy of the teller is revealed (men from India don't have "squaws") and I like the movie a little bit more for that, even if it is tough to overlook at first.
All in all, it was a gorgeous exercise in cinema. The visuals in the film were stunning and are worth going for. I adore watching Lee Pace, with eye-liner and a mask or without, so I showed up for that reason. The movie was pretty much free for me, so I had nothing but time to lose, and I think it was well-spent for all of the movie's flaws. I would not suggest that other people spend the money to see it in the theater (unless they'd like to support said indie theater, because we need to have them around to cleanse our palates after gorging on huge mainstream movies); best to wait for video on this one, folks. I don't think most people would like the movie, but if you can be patient enough to let the story unfold, it is a rough-cut gem of a film. The biggest plus (in my opinion) was that it was not as dark and plain yucky as Pan's Labyrinth; that is a movie that was a waste of time. Storytelling movies like P's L and Big Fish were let-downs for me, while The Fall and Secondhand Lions were not.
One of these days, the perfect yarn of a movie will come along, but this is not it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)