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'
July 22, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)