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'
Showing posts with label superhero. Show all posts
Showing posts with label superhero. Show all posts
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?
June 17, 2008
The Hulk (2.0)
Better actors + better direction + less complex plot = successful series re-boot
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
Yup, I am one of those people who is going to bash Ang Lee's The Hulk (2003); I hated it. Lunanshee and I both hate Eric Bana in the first place, so that was one strike against the film already. Shame on Lee for trying to make the audience think too much (something I am accused of all the time). It was a summer popcorn flick--we weren't there to navel-gaze; we were there to watch the Hulk do his signature thing (smashing, of course). I haven't seen the movie since the theater, but the disgust that I felt still burns after 5 years.
The thing that is hardest for me to believe is that Leterrier's version (2008) is more believable than Lee's (2003). How could the guy who blew The Transporter 2 out of believability deliver when a 'serious director' like Lee could not? I was pretty shocked with the second movie--I really liked it.
So I was cautious when I went on opening weekend. Edward Norton is totally worthy, but the problem is that he is a little too worthy for this film; it's almost as if he is slumming it. All in all, I think he did just fine at being an unassuming scientist. He certainly comes across as smart enough and he is much more believable than that other (alleged) beefcake-looking guy. Even Live Tyler, who is barely worthy (according to me) surprised me with how much the two characters were able to convince me they cared for each other (a chemistry that even the talented Jennifer Connelly, who we adore, was not able to fake). I do wish, however, that she had cleared her throat of that unbearable whispery voice to speak up. Betty Ross should not be a sex-kitten--she is a scientist and is intelligent in her own right. I've never read the comics, however, so maybe my expectations are a little too 'modern'. Heck, I can barely even remember the TV show...
Perhaps the most credit should be laid at the feet of the supporting actors. I feel that William Hurt, Tim Roth, and Tim Blake Nelson (even though he was way too over-the-top) all played their parts perfectly; they were just 'big' enough to keep the scene afloat without stealing it. Ultimately, their excellence in the acting craft is what made the picture work and what sold the action. I hate to use the words "team players", but that is the best way to describe how each actor's contribution melded with the others' to the best effect.
--See 'Comments' for more review--
November 20, 2007
'Riddick' Stalks Again?
Eye Heart Riddick
Yay! I saw this article on Rotten Tomatoes today:
So, here is the discussion: Is it worth it to make another Riddick move?
My answer: yes it is, but there are conditions. If Twohy will go back to the promises made by Pitch Black, I am there! If it is going to be another Chronicles of Riddick, I am out.
While I was amused and pretty pleased with the casting in "Riddick 2", the movie more or less ended up feeling as empty, shiny, cold and over-priced as a hugely ornate marble chess board. I hate chess, so perhaps you will understand the simile. But I love looking at the chess pieces--they are always so different and are usually all beautiful. That is how I felt about the actors in the second film, with the exception of Alexa Davalos. I like keeping an eye out for her in different places, like Angel. May I suggest her as one of the characters in the upcoming Watchmen? I think she is totally able to carry off being a super hero! On the other hand, Judi Dench? I have to resist the urge to gag when I see her character; a travesty.
Pitch Black is another matter; the story is small (as was the budget, apparently), but excellent. The effects are also pretty good, and at least adhere to some bounds of an alternate reality, unlike the sequel's. All in all, I like the less grand, but more sincere package, and I find the earnestness behind the filmmaking more appealing than the bombast that followed in Riddick 2.
I had heard that there was a trilogy in the offing, but I figured the third movie was The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. I meant to watch it, but never did. I think it was partially out of disgust; I thought it was a cop-out not to have another live-action movie to fill out the trilogy. I am happy to be wrong in this case.
So, my fingers are crossed. What do you think about a possible Riddick 3; worth the time?
Yay! I saw this article on Rotten Tomatoes today:
A Third Installment for The Chronicles of Riddick?: David Twohy prepares to enter the UnderVerse.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chronicles_of_riddick/news/1690384/So, here is the discussion: Is it worth it to make another Riddick move?
My answer: yes it is, but there are conditions. If Twohy will go back to the promises made by Pitch Black, I am there! If it is going to be another Chronicles of Riddick, I am out.
While I was amused and pretty pleased with the casting in "Riddick 2", the movie more or less ended up feeling as empty, shiny, cold and over-priced as a hugely ornate marble chess board. I hate chess, so perhaps you will understand the simile. But I love looking at the chess pieces--they are always so different and are usually all beautiful. That is how I felt about the actors in the second film, with the exception of Alexa Davalos. I like keeping an eye out for her in different places, like Angel. May I suggest her as one of the characters in the upcoming Watchmen? I think she is totally able to carry off being a super hero! On the other hand, Judi Dench? I have to resist the urge to gag when I see her character; a travesty.
Pitch Black is another matter; the story is small (as was the budget, apparently), but excellent. The effects are also pretty good, and at least adhere to some bounds of an alternate reality, unlike the sequel's. All in all, I like the less grand, but more sincere package, and I find the earnestness behind the filmmaking more appealing than the bombast that followed in Riddick 2.
I had heard that there was a trilogy in the offing, but I figured the third movie was The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury. I meant to watch it, but never did. I think it was partially out of disgust; I thought it was a cop-out not to have another live-action movie to fill out the trilogy. I am happy to be wrong in this case.
So, my fingers are crossed. What do you think about a possible Riddick 3; worth the time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
