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
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.
June 27, 2008
Kung Fu Panda
Skadoosh!
Gosh, that word covers so much, and it's hilarious (I couldn't resist). It'll probably be worn out by the end of the summer, but I think that it would be a good thing for kids to run around playing games about unlikely heroes.
Speaking of 'unlikely', I was not very optimistic about my chances of liking the movie when I went into the theater. I went more to accompany someone who is into martial arts (and to have another Angelina Jolie movie stub to add to my peg-board), but I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. I even giggled a few times, and I did not expect that either (It's not that it's hard to amuse me, but if something can make me laugh out loud, it's a good thing).
Instead of a movie that was over-stereotypical to even the untutored (that would be me), I thought it jumped through the usual hoops of "believing in oneself", 'teamwork', 'perseverance' and even 'the importance of paying attention to your teachers, even if they are telling you what you don't want to hear' with more agility than usual.
I found the fight scenes pretty astounding, for an animated film. The fun thing about animation is that a character can do just about anything (I am envious of the outrageous hang-time the characters managed), but animators don't always make sure that the motions are believable, particularly for kids' movies. Like I said before, I don't know much about martial arts, but I really bought the fight sequences (provided a dash of suspending disbelief to allow bouncing, for instance). If you have a more educated eye, please feel free to comment.
The whole movie was well-made (as one could only hope), neither wasting too much time on exposition or denouement, nor rushing the storyline. I particularly liked the various styles for the opening sequence, the main plot and the end credits. I was warned to stay until the end of them, but I don't think I've ever had so much fun watching them go by. The background art was intriguing and kind of educational. It did bug me, however, that I could not clearly see the symbols for each animal; I actually pay attention to that stuff and try to learn them. The scenes painted for background were cute and lasted the entire time; not even the Toy Story movies have bothered to do the same.
I think I could even stand to have this movie playing on the continuous loop that all kids adore, and that's saying quite a bit. (The same could not be said for the trailer--you know, that one that has been playing for the better part of a year?!)
Gosh, that word covers so much, and it's hilarious (I couldn't resist). It'll probably be worn out by the end of the summer, but I think that it would be a good thing for kids to run around playing games about unlikely heroes.
Speaking of 'unlikely', I was not very optimistic about my chances of liking the movie when I went into the theater. I went more to accompany someone who is into martial arts (and to have another Angelina Jolie movie stub to add to my peg-board), but I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. I even giggled a few times, and I did not expect that either (It's not that it's hard to amuse me, but if something can make me laugh out loud, it's a good thing).
Instead of a movie that was over-stereotypical to even the untutored (that would be me), I thought it jumped through the usual hoops of "believing in oneself", 'teamwork', 'perseverance' and even 'the importance of paying attention to your teachers, even if they are telling you what you don't want to hear' with more agility than usual.
I found the fight scenes pretty astounding, for an animated film. The fun thing about animation is that a character can do just about anything (I am envious of the outrageous hang-time the characters managed), but animators don't always make sure that the motions are believable, particularly for kids' movies. Like I said before, I don't know much about martial arts, but I really bought the fight sequences (provided a dash of suspending disbelief to allow bouncing, for instance). If you have a more educated eye, please feel free to comment.
The whole movie was well-made (as one could only hope), neither wasting too much time on exposition or denouement, nor rushing the storyline. I particularly liked the various styles for the opening sequence, the main plot and the end credits. I was warned to stay until the end of them, but I don't think I've ever had so much fun watching them go by. The background art was intriguing and kind of educational. It did bug me, however, that I could not clearly see the symbols for each animal; I actually pay attention to that stuff and try to learn them. The scenes painted for background were cute and lasted the entire time; not even the Toy Story movies have bothered to do the same.
I think I could even stand to have this movie playing on the continuous loop that all kids adore, and that's saying quite a bit. (The same could not be said for the trailer--you know, that one that has been playing for the better part of a year?!)
June 26, 2008
Sex and the City
Favorite characters + decent plot = fun Girls Night Out
Yes, I am one of those women who went in a group of more than three to see this movie, and I looked forward to doing so for weeks. It was a great experience.
The movie itself lived up to my expectations, and may have even edged into surpassing them. I think what most 'critics' didn't like about the movie is that it was more grown-up, which makes it "real", and therefore less entrancing than the fizzy antics of the TV show. But let's face it; did we really want to see The Girls toss aside more men? I didn't; they have to grow up some time (!). I was satisfied that the "happy-enough" endings for each of the characters on the show seemed probable while leaving more story to tell for the film. No one really explores what happens after "The End" but the movie braved that territory and conquered it thoroughly. A professor of mine recently pointed out that we (as a culture) are thrilled with weddings, but we don't get excited by marriages. She's right; watching that on a screen would be too much like "real life" (and I love my escapism as much as the next person). The reaction to the movie kind of proves that point. Miranda's plotline dealt directly with this, but she was always the most down-to-earth of all of them.
So no, the movie was not going to be as fabulously carefree as the show, but I think it required greater craft; it's really hard to make an outstanding small- to big-screen transition. Can you think of any? (Spin-offs & updates/remakes like Wayne's World and Mission Impossible are not to be considered, and I am thinking of adding "animated" to the list because that seems like cheating since one doesn't have to deal with aging of the characters.) I can't come up with any besides Firefly--> Serenity (I luv you, Joss Whedon!), but feel free to discuss. (RottenTomatoes.com has a really fun list compiled that does include the above types of shows/movies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_tv_adaptations/) I look forward to one day adding Veronica Mars to that list, however.
Seeing the movie was like a reunion with girlfriends; joyful and comforting. Do men turn out for movies in groups? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that...(yep, I'm a nerd) Does it have something to do with expectations of machoism? How often does is phrase "lone wolf" applied to a woman? Points to ponder, or comment upon, if you wish.
Who doesn't dream of getting married at the NY Public Library? Oops, I think my "geek" is showing again...
Yes, I am one of those women who went in a group of more than three to see this movie, and I looked forward to doing so for weeks. It was a great experience.
The movie itself lived up to my expectations, and may have even edged into surpassing them. I think what most 'critics' didn't like about the movie is that it was more grown-up, which makes it "real", and therefore less entrancing than the fizzy antics of the TV show. But let's face it; did we really want to see The Girls toss aside more men? I didn't; they have to grow up some time (!). I was satisfied that the "happy-enough" endings for each of the characters on the show seemed probable while leaving more story to tell for the film. No one really explores what happens after "The End" but the movie braved that territory and conquered it thoroughly. A professor of mine recently pointed out that we (as a culture) are thrilled with weddings, but we don't get excited by marriages. She's right; watching that on a screen would be too much like "real life" (and I love my escapism as much as the next person). The reaction to the movie kind of proves that point. Miranda's plotline dealt directly with this, but she was always the most down-to-earth of all of them.
So no, the movie was not going to be as fabulously carefree as the show, but I think it required greater craft; it's really hard to make an outstanding small- to big-screen transition. Can you think of any? (Spin-offs & updates/remakes like Wayne's World and Mission Impossible are not to be considered, and I am thinking of adding "animated" to the list because that seems like cheating since one doesn't have to deal with aging of the characters.) I can't come up with any besides Firefly--> Serenity (I luv you, Joss Whedon!), but feel free to discuss. (RottenTomatoes.com has a really fun list compiled that does include the above types of shows/movies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/best_tv_adaptations/) I look forward to one day adding Veronica Mars to that list, however.
Seeing the movie was like a reunion with girlfriends; joyful and comforting. Do men turn out for movies in groups? I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on that...(yep, I'm a nerd) Does it have something to do with expectations of machoism? How often does is phrase "lone wolf" applied to a woman? Points to ponder, or comment upon, if you wish.
Who doesn't dream of getting married at the NY Public Library? Oops, I think my "geek" is showing again...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)